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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:21:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDr4DUt_xhA2xnhV_or_z4GJfNAurE6mNtin5Zi1nSRhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:57 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> 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?

That uses // to represent a host-language defined implicit reference,
right?  I'm okay with that too.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 19:22:26 GMT

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