Note, there was a CSSWG resolution in last week's working group meeting: > RESOLVED: Disallow all current pseudo-elements inside of :has(), allow future pseudo-elements to define that they are valid if useful/possible. https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7463#issuecomment-1196971909 See the examples from the first comment there: > Selectors like `ol:has(li::marker)` and `section:has(p::first-line)` are problematic and we should make all pseudo-elements invalid inside `:has()`. If our current implementation (e.g. via bug 1771896) is already far enough along that we accept such selectors and would need a bug to add restrictions to reject them, then it might be worth filing a bug on that; otherwise/alternately we can just consider this as being part of the main/remaining portion of work under this main bug here.
Bug 418039 Comment 44 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
Note, there was a CSSWG resolution in last week's working group meeting: > RESOLVED: Disallow all current pseudo-elements inside of :has(), allow future pseudo-elements to define that they are valid if useful/possible. https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7463#issuecomment-1196971909 See the examples from the first comment there: > Selectors like `ol:has(li::marker)` and `section:has(p::first-line)` are problematic and we should make all pseudo-elements invalid inside `:has()`. If our current implementation (e.g. via bug 1771896) is already far enough along that we accept such selectors and would need to land another patch to add restrictions to reject them, then it might be worth filing a bug on that; otherwise/alternately we can just consider this as being part of the main/remaining portion of work under this main bug here.