- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 11:48:06 -0700
- To: lists@novalistic.com
- Cc: "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Daniel Tan <lists@novalistic.com> wrote: > On 6/23/2015 2:13 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> There's nothing wrong with that at a parsing level. The more complex >> grammar of :nth-child() is a bit more difficult, though - >> comma-separated indexes, or whole entries? > > Good point - what I initially had in mind was :nth-child(An+B, Cn+D of sel1, > sel2), but I can see how that could be interpreted as :nth-child(An+B of > sel1, Cn+D of sel2) instead, or how someone might want to write it that way. > I hadn't quite thought that through. > > It seems the complexity of this would be too great taking the selector-list > argument into account :/ I mean, you can do one or the other. In particular, just letting the whole thing be repeated comma-separated is fine and not confusing: :nth-child(An+B of sel1, An+B of sel2, Cn+D of sel1, Cn+D of sel2) It's shorter than using :matches() and repeating the :nth-child() part three more times, at least. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 22 June 2015 18:48:52 UTC