W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2009

Re: [css3-selectors] New last call WD for Selectors

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:35:06 +0100
Message-ID: <49BD4A5A.4060106@moonhenge.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Anton Prowse wrote:
>>   # [att~=val]     Represents an element with the att attribute whose
> ...
>> Issue 1:  Intuitively one might expect that if "val" were the empty
>> string it would represent an element with the att attribute whose value
>> is the empty string, rather than fail to represent anything.  (HTML5
>> currently proposes that <img>, <img alt=""> and <img alt="bar"> have
>> different semantics, for example, and so there is a use case for such
>> matching.)
> 
> This use case is met by, respectively:
> 
>  img:not([alt])
>  img[alt=""]
>  img[alt]:not([alt=""])
> 
> and changing the behavior of [att~=val] wouldn't change anything in 
> terms of making life simpler for authors here, as far as I can see.
> 
> Note the long discussion about this earlier on this list; I think it's 
> been more or less discussed to death, with the WG changing and 
> re-changing its decision several times.

Sure; I wasn't actually proposing a change to the behaviour, just 
pointing out that the spec didn't match my intuition on reading (which 
was backed up by an easily-conceived use case).  I'm a great believer in 
explanatory text when something in an otherwise-intuitive spec goes 
against intuition, so I guess I'd like to see a note somewhere 
explaining, exactly as you did, that the use case is met in other ways.

Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Sunday, 15 March 2009 18:36:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:17 GMT