Re: [selectors] Need to clearly define matching for :first-child, :nth-*, etc

On 7/15/15 4:12 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Yeah, but using "sibling" in a meaning that's different from the normal
>> "child of the same parent" meaning is not much better.
>
> It... is the same meaning?  There are no other elements that are
> children of the same parent, so it's the sole sibling in its inclusive
> siblings.

OK, stop.  The word "inclusive" does not appear anywhere in 
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors-4/ as of today (btw, a stable 
self-link to the current draft, not just past ones, would be nice for 
cases like this).  So now you're just making up things the spec doesn't 
say (but _should_, which is the point of this thread).  It talks about 
"siblings", not "inclusive siblings".

> This is just an issue with people being uncomfortable with
> degenerate cases

I'm quite comfortable with degenerate cases, as long as they're clearly 
defined.  The problem is when they're not clearly defined.  Using terms 
that don't have an actual definition in the spec and assuming some 
particular definition in degenerate cases is not conducive to clear 
definition.

> which we've run into in the past, and I'm always
> happy to clarify those.

That's all I'm asking for. ;)

-Boris

Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2015 20:19:02 UTC