adding matches pseudo-class #186
Conversation
css/selectors.json
Outdated
| @@ -272,6 +272,14 @@ | |||
| ], | |||
| "status": "standard" | |||
| }, | |||
| ":matches()": { | |||
| "syntax": ":matches( selector[, selector]* )", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
selector[, selector]* -> <selector>#
However, it takes a <selector-list> (https://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-4/#matches), but this syntax is not defined yet. Grammar can be taken here: https://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-4/#grammar
|
@lahmatiy So, I tried adding the necessary syntax definitions. That was a serious rabbit hole to fall down ;-) I took all the syntax definitions straight from the spec, except for:
These are just described and not actually shown, so I'm not 100% sure if I've got these right. |
css/selectors.json
Outdated
| @@ -272,6 +272,14 @@ | |||
| ], | |||
| "status": "standard" | |||
| }, | |||
| ":matches()": { | |||
| @@ -233,6 +260,9 @@ | |||
| "frequency-percentage": { | |||
| "syntax": "<frequency> | <percentage>" | |||
| }, | |||
| "function-token": { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
function-token is a token type and out of scope of this dict.
Btw, it has another syntax
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So I should remove these then...? How should this be represented then in our data? Some kind of link to the spec definition of token types?
The syntax definition I included was basically a guess based on my knowledge of related syntax, but I didn't really know what I was doing.
Same comment for the other token types.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Those tokens are defined in CSS Syntax Module Level 3 and shouldn't be presented in syntax.json. Because they are something like a generic, as <string> or <number> but a bit low-level.
| @@ -254,6 +284,9 @@ | |||
| "grid-line": { | |||
| "syntax": "auto | <custom-ident> | [ <integer> && <custom-ident>? ] | [ span && [ <integer> || <custom-ident> ] ]" | |||
| }, | |||
| "hash-token": { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hash-token is a token type and out of scope of this dict.
Btw, it has another syntax
| "id-selector": { | ||
| "syntax": "<hash-token>" | ||
| }, | ||
| "ident-token": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ident-token is a token type and out of scope of this dict.
Btw, it has another syntax
| @@ -716,6 +767,12 @@ | |||
| "step-timing-function": { | |||
| "syntax": "step-start | step-end | steps(<integer>[, [ start | end ] ]?)" | |||
| }, | |||
| "string-token": { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
string-token is a token type and out of scope of this dict.
Btw, it has another syntax
| @@ -11,12 +11,24 @@ | |||
| "animateable-feature": { | |||
| "syntax": "scroll-position | contents | <custom-ident>" | |||
| }, | |||
| "any-value": { | |||
| "syntax": "[!]+" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know what means such syntax. Could you explain?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Heh, I was guessing what it should possibly be, based on reading this defintion https://drafts.csswg.org/css-syntax-3/#typedef-any-value
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, well, that' diffidently incorrect. [!]+ means one or more exclamation marks and nothing else ;)
<any-value> can't be represented with such syntax, since it means any valid CSS value. Actually it's a generic and should be excluded from syntax.json.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you again ;-)
I have opened up a separate issue to track this: #190
| @@ -11,12 +11,24 @@ | |||
| "animateable-feature": { | |||
| "syntax": "scroll-position | contents | <custom-ident>" | |||
| }, | |||
| "any-value": { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe it's a generic that out of scope of this dict
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK. Thanks for your continued help.
|
@teoli2003 can I get your advice on how we can make progress on this one? |
|
@lahmatiy if we remove all you listed above, would it be ready to go? |
|
This needs rebasing |
|
I got fed up with waiting and opened #284. |
|
I'm really glad you did — you've actually come up with a really simple solution to this, whereas my attempt was horribly overcomplicated and we got stalled on it. |
As per https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1440868