Order allow,deny Deny from all Order allow,deny Allow from all Order allow,deny Allow from all RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / DirectoryIndex index.php RewriteRule ^index.php$ - [L] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule . /index.php [L] Order allow,deny Deny from all Order allow,deny Allow from all Order allow,deny Allow from all RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / DirectoryIndex index.php RewriteRule ^index.php$ - [L] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule . /index.php [L] [selectors-4] Should we have :open and :closed? · Issue #11039 · w3c/csswg-drafts · GitHub
Skip to content

[selectors-4] Should we have :open and :closed? #11039

@josepharhar

Description

@josepharhar

It was resolved here to have both :open and :closed pseudo-classes: #7319 (comment)

@annevk mentioned here that :closed is redundant with :not(:open): WebKit/standards-positions#413 (comment)

Here is the justification for having both of them: #7319 (comment)

Should we also talk about adding the corresponding :closed pseudo class? That would avoid the problem that :not(:open) can match anything, including things that don't open or close.

The HTML spec has not been merged yet: whatwg/html#10126

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions