W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2000

Selectors erratum (was Re: Various comments on selectors' Test)

From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 04:27:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20000207122732.13227.qmail@web906.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
> --- "Eric A. Meyer" <emeyer@sr71.lit.cwru.edu> wrote:
> > >5.5 Descendant selectors
> > >     I suggest "Descendant combinators" instead of
> > "Descendant selectors"
> > >     and more generally use "combinators" when
> > appropriate (5.5 -> 5.7)
> 
> I would agree (with Daniel). According to the CSS
> grammar.
> 
> BODY P is a selector, with BODY a simple selector, P a
> simple selector, and ' ' a combinator (defined thus in
> the grammar:
> : '+' S* | '>' S* | /* empty */)

I think the use of descendant selector in the spec must be considered
erroneous - if they are selectors, they are exactly the same as CSS-1
contextual selectors, and therefore the change is pointless, so therefore
they must be combinators.


=====
----------------------------------------------------------
From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS))
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
Received on Monday, 7 February 2000 07:27:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:03 GMT