W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [selectors4] Open issues

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 13:19:47 +0200
To: www-style@w3.org, "Simon Sapin" <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
Message-ID: <op.wu9tq9npidj3kv@simons-macbook-pro.local>
On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:35:27 +0200, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>  
wrote:

> Le 09/04/2013 01:22, fantasai a écrit :
>> ISSUE-316:http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/316
>>     Should ID selectors accept all HASH tokens instead of #ident only?
>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Feb/0437.html
>>
>>     Pros: Merge quirks and non-quirks parsing.
>>     Cons: We have interop on #ident.
>>     See:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Feb/0449.html
>>
>>     Side-question: If we don't accept this, should this quirk be
>>                    described in Selectors 4?
>
> Should quirks be described: yes, always, IMO.

Not if we want to drop the quirk. This quirk is not present in  
Firefox/Safari/Chrome. That means we can drop it.

> This case is a bit weird as it is the "non-quirks" parsing (#ident) that  
> requires extra effort in both specs and implementations.
>
> I’m in favor of doing the simpler thing (always parsing as HASH) if  
> there is no web-compat risk, but I don’t know how to assess that.

Likely there are pages that rely on the quirk not being present in  
standards mode as a way to target old IE, or some such.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2013 11:20:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 9 April 2013 11:20:25 UTC