W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2003

RE: XPath as CSS-selectors?

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn.ulsberg@nrk.no>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:00:59 +0200
Message-ID: <D186E3C450FED2119AFA00508B08736F06E938D5@MAEXCH05>
To: "'Boris Zbarsky'" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Cc: www-style Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>

The last message (with Message-ID: 
<D186E3C450FED2119AFA00508B08736F06E938D4@MAEXCH05>) was sent
prematurely, which I apologize for, so end the answering of Boris'
comments in this e-mail.

Boris Zbarsky wrote:

> As stated, the niceness of the XPath syntax is very subjective.

[...]

As Christian Wolfgang Hujer mentions, the use of '@' as an
attribute prefix is much cleaner than I think it is in CSS.
Everything else he mentions are opinions I share with him.

> Integrating the XPath parsers and CSS parsers, while handling
> forward compatibility, would be somewhat nontrivial, yes....

Ok.

> Just to clarify, I'm not against adding XPath-like functionality
> to CSS, as long as everyone involved is aware of the potential
> pitfalls.

Ok. Good. I'm not 100% for it either, I just want to explore the
idea to some extent. I can see many of the drawbacks with
implementing XPath in CSS, but at the same time I see so many
positive things that I just can't leave and forget it.

With XPath in CSS, I believe the CSS WG can focus more on what 
can be improved and added to CSS itself, instead of trying to
expand the CSS Selector functionality to cope with things XPath
already does perfectly.

> I think that waving said pitfalls away with unsubstantiated
> claims that things "should be easy" if somehow "done right" is
> not exactly the right approach.

Of course not, and I hope this isn't the way you percieve me,
because that's not my intention at all.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg           -=|=-          X-No-Archive: No
"He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away"
Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 10:01:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:22 GMT