- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:58:46 +0200
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, public-css-testsuite@w3.org
Boris Zbarsky On 09-09-29 18.02: > On 9/29/09 11:57 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> It is not reading between the line, it is reading while being inspired >> by CSS21. In CSS21 every 'simple selector' - or as CSS3 puts it, every >> 'simple selector sequence', is said to be either a type selector or a >> universal selector: > > I'm not following this. Why are we using definitions and concepts from > one specification to "interpret" another specification, which uses quite > different definitions and concepts? Because this sentence in CSS 3 Selectors, "If the universal selector is not the only component of a sequence of simple selectors, the * may be omitted" which is lifted directly out of CSS 2.1, offer us too little friction against thinking along the lines defined in CSS 2.1. The test suite of CSS Selectors Level 3 consequently uses the wording "omitted universal selector".[1][2][3] It doesn't simply say "omitted *", as the draft does. Do you agree that CSS Selectors Level 3 should say the same thing? Here is a text proposal: "If the universal selector is not the only component of a sequence of simple selectors and if it also is without the namespace component, then the universal selector may be omitted." [1] http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Selectors/current/xhtml/ [2] http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Selectors/current/html/ [3] http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Selectors/current/xml/ -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 17:59:27 UTC