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

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

From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 12:53:07 -0800
Message-ID: <38A08233.322@yahoo.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Matthew Brealey wrote:
> >> --- "Eric A. Meyer" <emeyer@sr71.lit.cwru.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> 
> CSS1's contextual selectors is a generic name for selectors which use
> what in CSS2 became combinators.
No.

<q cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1#contextual-selectors">Contextual
selectors consist of several simple selectors separated by
whitespace</q>

<q
cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/selector.html#descendant-selectors">
A descendant selector is made up of two or more selectors separated by
whitespace. 
</q>

[snip]

> (in particular the sentence reading "Contextual selectors in CSS1 look for
> ancestor relationships, but other relationships (e.g. parent-child)
> may be introduced in later revisions.").

The necessary implication from the quotation above is that these would
not be contextual because contextual selectors are 'simple selectors
separated by whitespace'.
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2000 07:51:26 GMT

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