Re: :host pseudo-class

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
>> But maybe you're right and the whole
>> pseudo-class/pseudo-element distinction is rather meaningless. But at
>> least pseudo-class til date made some sense.
>
> I still don't understand what you find wrong with this.  It's not that
> ":host() [can] match an element that cannot otherwise be matched",
> it's that the host element element is featureless, save for the
> ability to match :host.  (That's the definition of a featureless
> element - it's allowed to specify particular things that can still
> match it.)  In other words, it's not :host that's magical, it's the
> host element itself that's magical.

So :host:hover would not work? I guess you would have to spell that
:host(:hover)? Because although it does not have features, it has
features inside the parenthesis?

Was this concept introduced for other scenarios or just for :host?
Seems like a very weird rationalization.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/