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

Re: [css4-selectors] Focused descendant pseudo class

From: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:14:31 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMCRKiJy9nywo44cM_bDc1tWJnYD8phCzzC+j9reLQrEL-1Qig@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Cc: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
I'd read ! as not, in fact I just did reviewing the thread. It even made me
frown in confusion.

On 26 January 2012 11:31, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 12:14:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:54 UTC