W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2012

Re: [css4-selectors] Focused descendant pseudo class

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:31:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CADC=+jchVFL2HuoreC_Cp9UoKz6bE7FKmGpeVkVH16kkKUWVyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Yes ,I understand the theory behind it.  However, theory and practice are
two different things.  As I said last year, in a quick straw poll of half a
dozen or so folks who use css on a daily basis, literally every one of them
thought that examples from the list, wiki and draft that I provided meant
"not".

Maybe it is just something that has to be well explained (I would
definitely add to the draft in that respect if kept) ...  I don't want to
lead this back into a huge discussion unless it is really time to have it.
My whole point there is merely that if there is any risk of causing
additional confusion, why not just pick another.
On Jan 26, 2012 4:34 AM, "Lea Verou" <leaverou@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 26/1/12 02:08, Brian Kardell wrote:
>
>> Yes, I recall that ... and several people read ! as "not" which is where
>> ? came from I think.  Its bike shedding to an extent, I admit, but I
>> don't think without value to discard problematic ideas early on in favor
>> of less problematic ones....
>>
>>
> ! as "not" is a prefix operator, not a postfix one, as the one currently
> defined in the selectors4 draft. So, FWIW I don't think there's going to be
> any such confusion.
>
> I actually thought it's a great idea that it was changed to a ! since
> that's what we use in natural language too in order to highlight something
> important.
>
>
> --
> Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou)
>
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 11:32:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:49 GMT