W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2005

Re: Selectors:Editorial: 6.6.6

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 17:32:47 +0000 (UTC)
To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0512291730030.17886@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Elliotte Harold wrote:
> > 
> > In the last version of this specification, section 6.6.6. defined the
> > :contains() pseudo-class. [...]
> The explanation at least doesn't make me gag like the Biblical one did.
> That's an improvement. :-)
> However this is a last call working draft of a spec that I don't think 
> is yet widely implemented or referenced.

It has been in Candidate Recommendation stage since 2001. It is very 
widely implemented and referenced. It is in fact so widely implemented 
that we believe that we have enough interoperable implementations of the 
test suite that we may go straight from Last Call to Proposed 
Recommendation and skip the CR stage altogether this time; the only reason 
the spec returned to Last Call was that we wanted to gather wider review 
for the editorial changes and the removal of the :contains and 
:indeterminate features from the draft.

> Having a blank section like this is just an ugly wart. I would prefer to 
> simply remove it and let the renumbering fall where it may.

This would cause more problems than the wart.

People have not complained (at all!) about the various missing section 
numbers in other CSS drafts; why would this one be different?

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 29 December 2005 17:33:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:22 UTC