W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 1995

RE: draft-ietf-html-style-00.txt & class as a general selector

From: Chris Wilson (PSD) <cwilso@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 11:28:09 -0800
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-73-MSG951207112757FF000207@red-02-imc.itg.microsoft.com>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Chris Lilley wrote:
> h&kon said:
> > [CLASS="foo"] { color: blue }
>
>What purpose do all the [] and "" serve in the first example?

The [] encapsulation makes it a little easier to parse; the quotes, in that 
example, are unnecessary.

>It would really be simpler if CSS decided what operators were needed and 
thus
>defined what tokens it would need, rather than typing in some possible 
>notation and then deciding what the bits might mean...

As the CSS1 spec says, this is borrowed from CSS2 in order to facilitate 
easy migration to CSS2's addressing system.

>In the third example, .  means "a class called" but this does not seem
>to scale well, particularly when CSS is later used for other DTDs which
>might not have a class attribute (or might have one that means something
>else)

Ah, but the class attribute specification is obviously not meant to scale. 
 As I say at the end of this message, perhaps we should torch the syntax in 
favor of [CLASS=foo] addressing.

>Given that, it becomes clear that the third example is correct, or 
>at least, most consistent with existing usage.

Granted.  Read on...

>So, for generality and a clear upgrade path to CSS 2 how about some
>token to say, here is an attribute, and another token to say, here is
>it's value.  Let's use @ and = for these, though the representation
>could be some other token.  I just thought @ (at) was memorable for
>"attribute" and = seemed obvious for "has the value"

?  I thought there was already a "proposal" for generalized attribute 
selection - the [attribute=value], or just [attrib] for existence, format. 
 That was, I believe, the point of making "[ID=value]" so complex in 
comparison (I don't know why we didn't just do "[CLASS=foo]" from the 
beginning - perhaps we should?

	-Chris
Received on Thursday, 7 December 1995 14:29:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:43 GMT