W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2015

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:27:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBbWwV9JSDU=+OSvex0aBZvaML8XM=pO7ErubNYWvAwgg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> 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".

Right, I'm slipping into the language that DOM is going to use.

But still, an element is clearly part of its own set of siblings.  You
don't skip over the element when counting; there's no difference here
between "happens to have no other siblings" and "impossible to have
siblings".

Anyway, it's getting clarified, as soon as Anne adds the definition to DOM.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2015 20:28:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:18 UTC