The article describes a syntax for modifying the underlying data (adding new child elements or attributes to the DOM) for matching selectors, not resolving style changes in a single pass like you've shown.
I suspect they are replying to this part of the article:
"What you actually want to say is: “an element is effectively-dark if it has data-theme=”dark”, or if it has an effectively-dark ancestor with no effectively-light ancestor in between.” That’s a recursive relational definition. CSS cannot express it. CSSLog can:"
The entire article doesn't seem to mention the existence of :has() which is rather surprising given how recently it was written. Not even in the footnotes.
Yeah, that example is bad. The query doesn't require recursion, but they affirm it does by demonstrating a recursively-defined version of it. This is called "affirming the consequent"; "P -> Q" doesn't mean "Q -> P". Ironic, given the use of propositional logic throughout.
Comments
The article describes a syntax for modifying the underlying data (adding new child elements or attributes to the DOM) for matching selectors, not resolving style changes in a single pass like you've shown.
I suspect they are replying to this part of the article: "What you actually want to say is: “an element is effectively-dark if it has data-theme=”dark”, or if it has an effectively-dark ancestor with no effectively-light ancestor in between.” That’s a recursive relational definition. CSS cannot express it. CSSLog can:"
The entire article doesn't seem to mention the existence of :has() which is rather surprising given how recently it was written. Not even in the footnotes.
Yeah, that example is bad. The query doesn't require recursion, but they affirm it does by demonstrating a recursively-defined version of it. This is called "affirming the consequent"; "P -> Q" doesn't mean "Q -> P". Ironic, given the use of propositional logic throughout.
doh, good point. will fix this, I acknowledge I sort of handwaved the example. thanks for the correction!