W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 1998

RE: OPINIONS WANTED: regexps in CSS? (Re: Suggestion for Attribute Selectors)

From: Victoria Rosenfeld <jiggy@holly.ColoState.EDU>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:48:11 -0700 (MST)
To: "Braden N. McDaniel" <braden@shadow.net>
cc: www-style-request@w3.org, Stephanos Piperoglou <sp249@cam.ac.uk>, Bert Bos <Bert.Bos@sophia.inria.fr>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.3.95.980310154045.123286D-100000@holly.ColoState.EDU>



On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Braden N. McDaniel wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Victoria Rosenfeld
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 12:47 PM
> > To: Stephanos Piperoglou
> > Cc: Bert Bos; www-style@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: OPINIONS WANTED: regexps in CSS? (Re: Suggestion for
> > Attribute Selectors)
> 
> > If "advanced" means: "users fluent in Perl" ... how many people do you
> > think will be in this audience? The use of these REs seems to go counter
> > to what the web is all about, and it *ain't* about having the "advanced"
> > users be the only ones to use it to the fullest.
> 
> Who are you kidding? Any advanced user will have an edge over "less
> advanced" users when using the Web. There is an advantage had in knowing how
> the systems work that can't be attained any other way. Certainly the
> maturation of the Web  has increased the number of facilities available to
> less advanced users--and indeed, *all* users--but each of those easy-to-use
> facilities has some not-so-easy-to-understand guts associated with it.

I meant to try to demonstrate the limited use of REs. Indisputably,
advanced users will have advantages in *all* facets of the web. I was
trying to focus the discussion whether or notincluding REs would be worth
the hassle. But - hey - I'm no drafting the specs :)  ! G'head implement
away. If the majority of the web writers out there don't/won't use the REs
then they'll fall in the bin, eventually.

> 
> > Javascript seems like the way to go, in general.
> 
> JavaScript is an encumbered technology. The trademark is owned by Sun, and
> the language seems to be maintained by Netscape. This is a non-starter.
> 
Sorry, I probably wasn't as clear as i shld have been. I meant JS was a
goodplace to start as far as being able to do this "programming". 

> ECMAScript, OTHO, is a possibility. I don't think this is a good idea, but
> it's within the realm of possibility.
> 
> > Slightly complicated, but
> > very powerful *and* can be implemented at it's basic level (mouse overs,
> > popup windows, et all) fairly easily. Perl is a bitch to learn & I shudder
> > at the thougt of having to become "advanced" enough to use (what is
> > potentially) a great functionality such as CSSes.
> 
> Perl *is* a bitch to learn. But why do you think we need to add a scripting
> language to CSS at all?
> 
> REs aren't really a bitch to learn--the principles are pretty simple. But
> they are a bitch for most humans to parse in their minds. That's an
> important point. I think CSS should remain a human-writable format, and
> knowing REs shouldn't be part of the cost of entry. However, the power
> afforded by REs cannot be ignored, nor can the relative ubiquity of REs in
> the CS world.
> 
This is my point re: JS. It isn't a bitch to learn or to "parse".

> I think it would be great to have REs available for style sheet authoring,
> but they must not be required for using CSS. I'd suggest that anything that
> can be expressed in a RE in CSS should be able to be expressed in other
> means, even if they are much more verbose.
> 
Point taken. And agreed with. And if REs must not be required, they why
put them in the specs? What does including them add?

> Braden McDaniel
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 1998 17:48:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:54 GMT