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

Re: :host pseudo-class

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 06:38:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnb78i5q96B8tS=G5i=3oHQMnBgKbO3HKv7JyaZ03S2oiaPAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
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.

Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2015 04:39:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:53 UTC