On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:48 PM, David Hyatt <hy...@apple.com> wrote:
>> Do you actually mean try out both ":scope" tacked on to the end of the rule
>> as well as ":scope " (note the space indicating a descendant selector)
>> tacked on to the beginning?
>>
>> So for example, #foo { } would turn into #foo:scope, :scope #foo { } thus
>> allowing it to match either the scope or a descendant of the scope?
>
> No, it's an if/else. "#foo" would be equivalent to ":scope #foo". On
> the other hand, "#foo :scope" would be unaltered.
>
> ~TJ
So you're suggesting it would be impossible for a rule to match the scope
itself without the author having to explicitly qualify it with :scope? That
seems very unintuitive.
dave
(hy...@apple.com)