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

Re: [CSS4 Selectors] :matches naming bikeshed

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 18:58:06 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=rxewt+QqRm3Lcj8TSGi9-2scS1w@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
I am not sure if others have commented on the choice of !, and I get the
idea behind it, but it still seems less than ideal.  There is, in the very
least, a large number of people who will be predisposed to read that as
something very different than what it means, so while one could argue that
it is possible to learn, it certainly seems to make that (unnecessarily?)
more difficult.  That is just my opinion, of course.

I see, reading through the linked emails in the wiki how the idea itself
originates.  The ! was really the big hiccup I think.

So... To make sure I've got it....instead of:
div:has(.foo).bar:has(.x)

Would you write:
!div:matches(! .foo).bar:matches(! .x)

?
On Jun 18, 2011 10:16 AM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 06/17/2011 03:58 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>> So is the idea that eventually something like
>>
>> div:matches($ p);
>>
>> would (in this case) be the equivalent of:
>>
>> !div p
>>
>> ... In case it's not obvious, I am trying to make sense of the wiki/notes
vs the draft. It's hard to follow. There are parts
>> in the emails that are future (past even level 4?) and things in the
draft that don't seem to have come from anything on the
>> wiki or the lists..
>
> The things in the draft are from previous discussions on the list.
> The main thing that changed is that I swapped $ with ! with respect
> to the emails.
>
> So you'd either have
>
> div:matches(! p) as equivalent to !div p
>
> or
>
> div:matches($ p) as equivalent to $div p
>
> ~fantasai
>
Received on Saturday, 18 June 2011 22:58:34 GMT

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