[selectors] :local-link definition's comparison of URLs should be more precise than "matches"
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Newbie friendliness
- 72/100
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Tech stack
- css
- Domain
- documentation
Research direction
Start at the “:local-link” pseudo-class section in the Selectors Level 4 draft and read the linked URL Standard definitions for URL equals, excluding fragments, and URL fragments. Update the comparison wording to use those precise concepts, then verify that the conditions for null and non-null target fragments remain explicit.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
This is nitpicky, but "matches" tends to be ambiguous when applied to data structures like URLs. Sometimes it just means "equals", and other times it means something more complicated and sometimes unspecified. In this case, I think it means https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#concept-url-equals, conditionally with the exclude fragments flag, so you should say that.
The relevant text in https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors-4/#the-local-link-pseudo is:
It represents an element that is the source anchor of a hyperlink whose target’s absolute URL matches the element’s own document URL. If the hyperlink’s target includes a fragment URL, then the fragment URL of the current URL must also match; if it does not, then the fragment URL portion of the current URL is not taken into account in the comparison.
This might become:
It represents an element that is the source anchor of a hyperlink whose target’s absolute URL [=url/equals=] the element’s own document URL, with the [=url/equals/exclude fragments=] parameter set to true if the hyperlink’s target URL has a null [=url/fragment=].
- Dominant language
- Bikeshed
- Stars
- 4.9k
- Forks
- 816
- Avg merge
- 2d 18h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 24
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from w3c/csswg-drafts
-
Agenda+ css-sizing-4 css-values-5
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 65/100
w3c/csswg-drafts#14502 · 1 reaction ·
-
css-values-5 editorial Needs Edits
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
w3c/csswg-drafts#14498 · 2 comments ·
-
css-overflow-4 topic: line-clamp
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
w3c/csswg-drafts#14485 · 1 comment ·
-
Administrative Tracker css-values-4
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
w3c/csswg-drafts#14482 · 4 comments · 1 reaction ·
-
css-values-5 Needs Edits
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 74/100
w3c/csswg-drafts#14466 ·
All issues in w3c/csswg-drafts
Similar issues
-
user-reported
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 85/100
Kong/developer.konghq.com#7316 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
HarperFast/skills#96 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 82/100
infinispan/infinispan#18150 ·
-
bug triage:deciding
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 88/100
open-telemetry/otel-arrow#4132 ·
-
Ecosystem: ClawMetry — the Qwen Code reader is now free and open source (follow-up to #9294 / #9338) Opencategory/integration priority/P3 scope/documentation status/ready-for-human type/feature-request
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 84/100