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

Re: [selectors4] Should the reference combinator really be a combinator?

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:57:56 -0800
Message-ID: <4F57E7F4.5060401@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 03/07/2012 01:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
> There are some other relationships that we could potentially express
> as combinators but have instead chosen to represent as pseudoclasses,
> such as :col(), but that's because the relationship there is very
> specific to HTML (and other languages that have tables which are
> represented in row-major form, plus childless column elements) and not
> general-purpose.  The reference combinator is potentially
> multi-purpose.

Actually that's an interesting point. Hixie's original proposal for
:column() used // as a combinator instead. Using a combinator there
does avoid the branching possibilities present with :column(), and
might therefore make more sense. What do you think?

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 22:59:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:48:51 GMT