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

Re: [selectors4] Editorial comments on the 2013-04-17 ED

From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:51:28 +0200
Message-ID: <517918C0.9050100@exyr.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Response below, but first some additional comments:

A few instances of "during" have been replaced by "dURLng".

The definition of :focus refers "activatable elements"
http://www.whatwg.org/html/selectors.html#selector-focus
but the #selector-focus anchor doesn’t seem to exist there.

I have a bunch more comments on URL comparison for :local-link and 
:local-link(). I’ll send a detail review in a separate email later.


Le 25/04/2013 00:32, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
>> §3.6 should have an exhaustive list (and explicitly marked as such) of
>> "parts that are not under the control of Selectors". If the rest of that
>> paragraph is that list, just clarify that it is exhaustive.
>
> Made it less informal.

Sorry my request was unclear, but the relationship between "the parts 
that are not under the control of Selectors" and the rest of the 
paragraph is still implicit. In particular, I’m not certain that there 
is not another part, not listed here, that is not under control of 
Selectors.

Suggested wording: "… except for the following parts, which are not 
under the control of Selectors." Or start with exceptions, then "The 
rest of Selector syntax …"

Maybe add that the case-sensitivity of language ranges is defined by 
rfc4647/bcp47, even though that happens to be (ASCII?) case-insensitive.


>> §6.1 "[att] Represents an element with the att attribute, whatever the value
>> of the attribute." I’m nitpicking, but I would add "even if that value is
>> the empty string."
>
> When is the empty string not a value?

Well, yeah, it’s nitpicking :)


>> Same section: "If an element has multiple class attributes, …" That never
>> happens with HTML or XML, right? (The parser only keeps one.) Perhaps the
>> note should say that, and §6.1 and §6.2 should have similar notes.
>
> Isn't that already implied by the end of that paragraph, which states
> that we have no idea how such a situation could arise?

Ok, probably good enough.


>> §9 Are time-dimensional pseudo-classes appropriates for slides, only one of
>> which is shown at a time?
>
> Assuming that your document language assigns a time-position to them, sure!

Ok, so not in slide tools based on HTML and JavaScript. (At least not 
without something like Web Components.)


>> §9.1 "The :current pseudo-class represents the innermost element, or
>> ancestor of an element, that is currently being displayed." I don’t
>> understand "innermost or ancestor".
>
> I don't understand "innermost" either.  Removed.

Ok, so :matches(:past, :current, :future) matches every element, right? 
This might be worth having in a note.


>> §12.3 I read the linked section of css3-text, but I’m not sure exactly which
>> characters are "subject to whitespace processing". It especially should not
>> depend on the results of the cascade in general or the value of the
>> 'white-space' property in particular. Is it doable to have an exhaustive
>> list of characters in Selectors?
>
> In section 4.1 of Text, the first paragraph says "White space
> processing affects only ...".  That's what we're referring to.

Ok. I think it would help to:

* Link to §4.1 instead of §4
* Use the same wording: s/subject to/affected by/


>> §12.4.2 "If an "n" token is provided (the first clause in the grammar)" N is
>> the second clause.
>
> No it's not?

Ooh, first clause in the (alternation) grammar, not first token 
definition. Sorry.


>> §12.6 "among elements of the same type (tagname)" I’m not sure if tagname
>> could be interpreted as as local name. Expanded name could be used instead.
>
> I don't want to obfuscate the meaning with XML stuff, so instead I've
> just linked it to the type selector section, which goes into full
> detail.

"Expanded name" is (also?) defined by css-namespace, but that’s probably 
good enough.

-- 
Simon Sapin
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 11:51:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:10 UTC