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

Boris Zbarsky On 09-09-30 02.44:

> [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]


[Fine. Btw, I hit Reply-to-all in Th.bird. Saw no reply-to header]

 
> 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.


   That CSS21 quote builds directly on CSS21's grouping of the 
simple-selector[-sequence]s into two kinds:

5.2 Selector syntax

A simple selector is either a type selector or universal selector 
followed immediately by zero or more attribute selectors, ID 
selectors, or pseudo-classes, in any order.

>  I agree that sentence is just wrong.

   Then I think that even CSS21 must say "remove the universal 
selector" rather than "remove the *". And also seize to operate 
with just 2 kinds of simple-selector[-sequence]s.

   Either that OR CSS3 should start to operate with the same two 
groups of simple-selector[-sequence]s that CSS21 does. And, as a 
consequence

    namespace|[attribute]
            *|[attribute]

   should become a legal synonym of

    namespace|*[attribute]
            *|*[attribute]
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 19:52:10 UTC