3 ms·
Oh boy this got me excited. Just to quote from the article: "PARENT SELECTOR!" I've been wanting this for years. One quibble is that it shouldn't be an exclam
by geuis 14y ago
Oh boy this got me excited. Just to quote from the article:
"PARENT SELECTOR!"
I've been wanting this for years. One quibble is that it shouldn't be an exclamation, it should be a < character. A ! doesn't semantically make sense. Alternatively, perhaps ! keeps its current designation, but < means immediate ancestor. This would match with > meaning direct descendant.
Many of the other things, I don't see much point. They can be easily done with CSS as it is now. But, it's good to have new things coming up so lets withhold judgment till then.
- masklinn 14y ago> A ! doesn't semantically make sense. Makes as much sense as the rest. ! is an operator of selected element in a selector, not a "parent selector". You can combine `!` with children selectors (`E! > F` will select any E with F children, it's equivalent to `xpath(E[F])` no use of the ancestor:: axis), they don't conflict. You don't actually go "back up" the selection chain, the matching engine simply changes which elements are "kept" during the selection process. > Many of the other things, I don't see much point. They can be easily done with CSS as it is now. For highly varying values of "easily". :matches requires a preprocessor or lots of repetition; :local-link is pretty much impossible without markup processing; time-dimensional elements emulation require a fair bit of markup and scripting; :indeterminate simply isn't available; and grid-structural pseudo-classes require markup support (and potentially scripting as well if the tables are dynamic)
- samwillis 14y agoI remember reading that the reason preventing this before was the performance on the css rendering engines, does anyone know if that was the case?