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

Re: [CSS4 Selectors] :matches naming bikeshed

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:16:51 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinBoivZ9Tc=kXj7dvw6cZMcvb1xEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Ah.  Maybe I misread... Is it just doing a simple check on the union of the
sets of results from two selectors from the top level?
 On Jun 19, 2011 6:07 PM, "Brian Kardell" <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
> $ seems much less confusing to me personally, but I think almost anything
> would be. I wasn't even bothered by Ian's original # proposal.
>
> just out of curiosity, what would something like this mean (a value to the
> left of the subject) ...would it be valid?
>
> div:matches(.foo $ > .bar)
>
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2011 12:26 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
wrote:
>>
>> On 06/18/2011 06:58 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not sure if others have commented on the choice of !,
>>
>>
>> Heh, others have. I don't feel strongly about it, but we need something
>> as a placeholder to bikeshed about. :) I personally prefer $, since it's
>> a bit bolder (for use as a standalone character) and the S-shape can
>> stand for "self" or "selector". If you think that's better I can change
>> the draft.
>>
>>
>>> 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)
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>>
>> You have several options:
>>
>> div.bar:matches(! .foo):matches(! .x)
>>
>> !div.bar:matches(! .foo) .x
>>
>> !div.bar:matches(! .x) .foo
>>
>> The selector in question selects a <div> of class "bar" that has
>> at least one descendent of the "foo" class and at least one descendant
>> of the "x" class.
>>
>> I imagine this kind of branching, is pretty hard to implement
efficiently.
>> What's in the draft right now wouldn't allow you to do that; you can use
>> the equivalent of at most one :has() per selector.
>>
>> ~fantasai
>>
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 14:17:27 GMT

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