W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2008

Re: [CSSWG] Resolutions 2008-02-26

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:34:57 -0700
Message-ID: <47F40A11.20709@inkedblade.net>
To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org

Alan Gresley wrote:
 >
> Remember that all cases must be considered with negation in mind. Negation
> itself must always be consistent. Where lights (green) are turned off
> (orange) in one place, lights (blue) are turned on (red) in other places. :-)
> 
> Think amount it
> 
> :not([att^=val])
> :not([att$=val])
> :not([att*=val])
> 
> could be the new hacks of the future separating current implementations
> from the implementations of the future (like the current betas). Is this
> a Pandora's box that the CSSWG really wants to open?

This is a very good point, and it's why we declared them all invalid in the
first place. Personally, I'm fine with any resolution on these three and
as far as I'm concerned the Selectors editors can make a decision on their
own. But I'm leaning toward leaving [attr~=""] as valid and matching nothing,
because that's what we already have interoperability on.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 22:35:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:04 GMT