On Feb 5, 2014 6:40 AM, "Simon Sapin" <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: > > On 05/02/2014 05:46, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>> So just like >>> >>> ::<name> indicates a pseudo-element, >>> :<name> indicates a pseudo-class, >>> >>> we'd have >>> >>> <combinator-prefix><name> indicate a combinator. >> >> >> [...] >> >> How about using ^? > > > > +1 to ^<name> (eg. ^shadow and ^shadow-all) for new combinators. > > My main issue with bare ^ and ^^ combinators is that they don't have a name apparent in syntax, but only assign arbitrary meaning to random ASCII characters. > > ^<name> would also fix David's searchability concern, if we pick names that are non-ambiguous enough. > > -- > Simon Sapin > Just out of curiosity, is there a reason other than "its really close to what's there" to pick ^? I'm not trying to gum up the works but I feel like someone should at least attempt to play devil's advocate since combinators are a pretty rare add. The only issues I can think of are that: ^ is already a valid part of attribute selectors - and it would mean something really different, and it looks like "up" which might be why it plays it's role in regex too. In any case, given the constant use in the community of the term "parent selector" it's plausible that this could be misunderstood. So I guess the question is why not pick something else with no ambiguity or implication.. slashes aren't used, ampersand isn't used, tilde isn't used - are any of them better choices?
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 13:43:23 UTC