- From: Hr Gwea <hrg.wea@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 16:28:04 -0400
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAE++px-8ywKjvssgaGJpshNa2AvA_kdGczQf2rzv0KyoYw-o4g@mail.gmail.com>
Ok, that reduces the duplication a bit, but still requires elem1 and elem2 to be named explicitly twice. Which is not convenient when elem1 and elem2 are complex selectors. I was thinking of the possibility to pass parameters to the descendant combinator. For example: elem1 >(3)> elem2 /*descendants up to third level*/ elem1 >(2,5)> elem2 /*descendants from second to fifth level*/ elem1 >(1)> elem2 /*same as child combinator*/ How do you like it? On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 2, 2016, at 7:51 PM, Hr Gwea <hrg.wea@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Is there any plans or ideas to simplify selectors like this: > > > > elem1 > elem2, > > elem1 > * > elem2, > > elem1 > * > * > elem2 {...properties...} > > > > i.e. all elem2 that are children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren > of elem1. > > More generally, a descendant combinator that let us specify the max > depth of the descendants > > In selectors 4, :not() can take a selector list. > > elem1 elem2:not(elem1 * * * elem2) { > /* should do what you want */ > } > > > If not, can I propose a solution? > > You can always propose.
Received on Sunday, 3 July 2016 20:28:33 UTC