Use nth-of-type instead of nth-child when appropriated
antonmedv opened this issue · 9 comments
After thinking a little bit more, nth-child as good as nth-of-type
@antonmedv I'm curious what are your thoughts about this now?
Personally, I would prefer nth-of-type just because it's so much more intuitive (for humans reading the selector) and also it might be a tad more robust in some cases.
I wouldn't mind creating a PR, if you would be open to that?
Probably. Is nth-of-type available everywhere?
Browser support for this looks good to me at this point, yes.
Sounds good.
I'm wondering why #some_id div:nth-child(2) a is preferred over #some_id :nth-child(2) a in the existing code? That div appears to be redundant in the examples I've checked.
:nth-of-type does require the tagName as part of the selector
One idea (for the readability the OP mentioned) is that the lib could favour div:nth-of-type(2) for cases where there are mixed siblings and a plain :nth-child for cases where siblings are all of the same type.
It’s an optimisation problem.
if we can check all selectors, we can select the best. But it’s too slow, so Finder uses heuristics to “guess” best selector. Finder uses concept of penalties.
I would second that.
input:nth-of-type(1) shouldnbe more stable and less affected by other siblings in the parent that are not of type input. So if some div or span changes, that selector could still work.