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