145357 2015-05-24 02:28:14 -0700 :matches incorrectly matches pseudo elements 2020-01-24 00:02:16 -0800 1 1 1 Unclassified WebKit CSS 528+ (Nightly build) Unspecified Unspecified RESOLVED DUPLICATE 206654 P2 Normal --- 1 esprehn ysuzuki benjamin koivisto ysuzuki oldest_to_newest 1097145 0 esprehn 2015-05-24 02:28:14 -0700 http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors-4/#matches The spec says: "Pseudo-elements cannot be represented by the matches-any pseudo-class; they are not valid within :matches()." <style> div:matches(::before, ::after) { content: "Should not match."; } </style> <div></div> 1097147 1 ysuzuki 2015-05-24 05:28:47 -0700 Hi Benjamin, do you have any thought about this? Is this a solid decision in css-wg, or still controversial? If it's a solid decision, we should drop this feature. But if it's still discussed and not mature yet, we should keep it until we meet the consensus. 1097430 2 benjamin 2015-05-26 14:01:56 -0700 Last time we talked about this, the CSSWG was still bikesheding on the definition of pseudo elements. Given how insanely bad the CSSWG is, and the value of this feature, I am ok with keeping this "bug" around. 1097433 3 esprehn 2015-05-26 14:04:13 -0700 (In reply to comment #2) > Last time we talked about this, the CSSWG was still bikesheding on the > definition of pseudo elements. > > Given how insanely bad the CSSWG is, and the value of this feature, I am ok > with keeping this "bug" around. That just means content will depend on it and then other browsers will need to copy your unspec'ed behavior. 1097446 4 benjamin 2015-05-26 14:22:42 -0700 (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > Last time we talked about this, the CSSWG was still bikesheding on the > > definition of pseudo elements. > > > > Given how insanely bad the CSSWG is, and the value of this feature, I am ok > > with keeping this "bug" around. > > That just means content will depend on it and then other browsers will need > to copy your unspec'ed behavior. We made a proposal for a formal definition several months ago. 1610544 5 koivisto 2020-01-24 00:02:16 -0800 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 206654 ***