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

Re: [Selectors] Clarify when universal selector may be omitted

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:20:26 -0700
Message-ID: <4ADD1E6A.2010708@inkedblade.net>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> [dropping the mailing list this doesn't belong on; I have no idea why 
> you chose to ignore the explicit reply-to header on my mail]
> 
> On 9/29/09 8:06 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>> Which means that while you can omit the whole thing, you can't just
>>> omit the '*' and include the namespace component, Webkit's behavior to
>>> the contrary notwithstanding.
>>
>> What seems strictly necessary is to better the CSS 3 Selectors text
>> which, by quoting CSS21, is focusing on the "*" character:
>>
>> "If the universal selector is not the only component of a sequence of
>> simple selectors, the * may be omitted."
> 
> Ah, yes.  That should say "the universal selector may be omitted", 
> presumably, though then it should also say something about how the 
> universal selector needs to be in the default namespace for that to 
> work.  I agree that sentence is just wrong.

I've updated the spec to clarify this:
   http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/csswg/selectors3/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.46&r2=1.47&f=h

Please let me know if this addresses your comments.

Thanks,
~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 02:21:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:21 GMT