- 被鎖定
Differences between implementation of :has between FF and Chrome.
FF bug (?) (my own tests), Chrome works as expected, was also gemini ai discussed.: Why for the following css rule (new FF): header:has(~ noscript) ~ * div[class*="-s… (閱讀更多)
FF bug (?) (my own tests), Chrome works as expected, was also gemini ai discussed.:
Why for the following css rule (new FF):
header:has(~ noscript) ~ * div[class*="-slider"] {width: calc(var(--number-of-slides) * 100%);}
the --number-of-slides is defined and visible:
header:has(~ noscript) ~ * div[class*="-slider"] {--number-of-slides: 1}
but this one isn't at all:
header:has(~ noscript:has([value="1"])) ~ * div[class*="-slider"] {--number-of-slides: 1}
And all remembering that in the noscript there is direct descendant having value="1"
As mentioned it works as expected (so average person naturally may think it sould) well for Chrome - noscript is visible, js disabled, controls are visible. Sophisticated use case of :has() but it sort of "has right" to happen.