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

Re: Selectors

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:31:24 -0400
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20081016143124.GA10440@pickering.dbaron.org>

On Thursday 2008-10-16 15:55 +0200, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> The new spec is available at http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors3/
> The diff is available at http://tinyurl.com/selectors3-diff20081016

These changes look good, with two minor exceptions:

(1)

# When a=1, or a=-1, the number may be omitted from the rule. 

This makes it sound like when a=-1, the "-1" can be omitted, whereas
really only the "1" can be omitted, and the "-" is still required.
It should also perhaps be clear than the optional "+" sign before a
positive 1 need not be omitted even if the number is, so that
:nth-child(+n+6) is valid.

(I sort of raised this before in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Mar/0083.html
although I missed the issue about the "+n" case.)


(2)

The document uses the term "expanded element name" without defining
it.  It probably ought to define it somewhere, perhaps by reference
to the term "expanded name" in http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/ .

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2008 14:32:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:15 GMT