W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2011

RE: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions F2F Kyoto Sat: CSS3 Fonts, Regions, @viewport, Variables, @supports, Selectors4, Administrivia

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 08:38:20 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTik1BPJ95DZ2C0LKg5rMoQG2hnORiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Jansen <John.Jansen@microsoft.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
I have read through the wiki and the discussions surrounding
subject/matches/has and I can't seem to find where ! is introduced.  In any
case, I ran this privately past 5 designers and 2 programmers who are very
good with CSS and without fail all eight of us had the same reaction as
Opera voiced "that means not".  There was also unanimous agreement that
has() as presented by Ian and implemented in jQuery for some time (with the
addition of supporting rhs combinator), despite a smattering of limitations
is both infinitely more intuitive/readable and fulfills the vast majority of
their real world needs.

It is also easy to implement and has the advantage that it already has shown
its practical worth and is used by a large community.

As I said, I read fantasai's comments on this, and I understand the
objections on a larger "matches", but :has() seems like low hanging fruit
that accomplishes a lot even if it could also be written with a matches() or
some symbol notation.  Even if the later has much expressive power, I would
personally willingly trade a certain amount of whatever that is for simple
intuitiveness and readability.

Just feedback from a few users.
 On Jun 10, 2011 11:24 PM, "John Jansen" <John.Jansen@microsoft.com> wrote:
Received on Saturday, 11 June 2011 12:38:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:41 GMT