4 ms·

I'm the author of the post linked here, but not the author of the spec. My goal was to introduce the new features -- obviously there was a bit of a "deep end" p

I'm the author of the post linked here, but not the author of the spec. My goal was to introduce the new features -- obviously there was a bit of a "deep end" problem talking about :has and I need to do a bit more work on that part of the post. The distinction between "fast" and "complete" selectors is explained in the spec doc: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors-4/ http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors-4/ Obviously I can't read the minds of the spec writers, but I imagine they don't know what the performance implications of :has() is right now and they don't want to commit to something that kills browser performance once it's out there in the wild.

andybak 12y ago
So maybe wait until there's an implementation before deciding whether it's a good thing to have in the spec? (I don't necessarily mean "a vendor-specific implementation in a released browser" - but someone should be coding prototypes of this stuff. Adobe did it for some of their new additions - clearly marked as experimental in special builds of Chromium)
- gsnedders 12y ago
  The general attitude is that things get in the spec once there is rough consensus they should be implemented, but can be dropped if they turn out to be unworkable with implementation experience.