- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:26:44 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 22/06/2015 20:48, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > :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. Reading this, I start thinking it's not the syntax of the arguments of :nth-*() this tries to extend, but the syntax of selectors themselves. And it's a pity 'n' would be considered as an IDENT because otherwise making all selectors accept a 'An+B of ...' leading pattern would seem to me VERY cool... </Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2015 06:29:27 UTC