Bug 145357
| Summary: | :matches incorrectly matches pseudo elements | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | WebKit | Reporter: | Elliott Sprehn <esprehn> |
| Component: | CSS | Assignee: | Yusuke Suzuki <ysuzuki> |
| Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
| Severity: | Normal | CC: | benjamin, koivisto, ysuzuki |
| Priority: | P2 | ||
| Version: | 528+ (Nightly build) | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
Elliott Sprehn
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>
| Attachments | ||
|---|---|---|
| Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc. |
Yusuke Suzuki
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.
Benjamin Poulain
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.
Elliott Sprehn
(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.
Benjamin Poulain
(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.
Antti Koivisto
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 206654 ***