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

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

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:03:03 +0200
Message-ID: <4ADE2587.7050900@xn--mlform-iua.no>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli On 09-10-20 22.10:
> fantasai On 09-10-20 21.41:
>
>   
>> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>     
>>> fantasai On 09-10-20 04.20:
>>>    
>>>       
>>>> 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.
>>>>         
>>> Nits: you wrote "an an" instead of "an" (first sentence).
>>>       
>> Fixed. Thanks.
>>
>>     
>>> Proposal/Comment
>>>
>>> In short, I suggest that the last sentence should start like this (my 
>>> changes in UPPERCASE):
>>>
>>>    <p>If a universal selector represented by THE <code>*</code> ONLY 
>>> (THAT IS: without a namespace prefix) is not immediately followed by a 
>>> pseudo-element AND ALSO IS NOT the only component IN a sequence of 
>>> simple selectors, then [ ... etc]
>>>
>>> Background/Explanations
>>>
>>> ...
>>>       
>> I've inserted "i.e." inside the parentheses.
>>     
>
>
> Good.
>   

Btw, I said 'that is' because I've hear that that is what is often used 
in specs, and I find that clearer, myself.


>> I decline to make the other
>> changes, as I feel the sentence is adequately clear as-is and I don't
>> find the proposed change to be a noticeable improvement, if any.
>>     
>
>
> I continue to believe that this sentence is suboptimal and 
> unclear. But there are certainly many ways to improve it.
>   
[...]

> As it is, the reader must himself/herself mentally insert a "not" 
> after the second "is". It could in fact be better to skip the 
> second "is" -  then it becomes clear that the "is not" is valid 
> here also.
>   

To clarify the last point. Contracting somewhat, the spec now says:

NOW: If "*" *is not* the only component (i.e. w/o prefix)
     OR *is* immediately followed by a pseudo-element,
     THEN  the "*" may be dropped.

Is this meant to have the following meaning: ?

?!? If "*" *is neither* the only component (i.e. w/o prefix)
    *nor* immediately preceding a pseudo-element,
    THEN  the "*" may be dropped.

If the answer is "yes, this is what is meant", then I suggest using the 
"neither - nor" wording that I used above. *OR* I suggest skipping the 
second "is":

NEW If "*" *is not* the only component (i.e. w/o prefix)
    OR followed by a pseudo-element,
    THEN  the "*" may be dropped.

Because as it is, the second condition could be read as

    OR [if it] is followed = OR *when* it is followed [etc]
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 21:03:37 GMT

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