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

Re: [css3] "Selectors that People Actually Use"

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:27:00 -0600
Message-ID: <47BB9E04.8030708@mit.edu>
To: Alan Gresley <alan1@azzurum.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org

Alan Gresley wrote:
> It would be shorter still if we just had.
> 
> div[id]

Hey, that's what I said when you were insisting on your id*="" thing.  ;)

> Anyway div:not([id]) and div:not([id*=""]) are treated different in particular circumstances when using universal selectors and chained selectors.

Like what?  I know Gecko treats them differently: :not([foo*=""]) always matches 
in Gecko right now.  Are there other UAs where those two selectors behave 
differently?

> You could also have a string of selectors.
> 
> div.x, dix.y {} /* legacy style */
> div[id="x"] {} /* x special style */
> div[id="y"] {} /* y special style */
> div[id*=""], div:not([id*=""]) {} /* progressive enhancement general style */

None of that requires *=, though.  And progressive enhancement for what, 
exactly?  Trying to lock out browsers that just don't support *= at all?

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 03:26:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:01 GMT