W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Selector Syntax Survey - subject indicator vs :has()

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:34:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAKoe35nA4p-qeL5a9XTEQf0amBYpfDUpiBMebPsq5c9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> (I'm reading through the additional comments now.  I'll let y'all know
> if I find anything interesting.)

You can read through the comments yourself if you'd like:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmRB4Bq4bNRBdHdCcDJJZWxEaEhLU20yOGo1ZVBvT2c&usp=sharing

I didn't find anything too surprising in here.  Lots of people made
the same arguments that we'd brought up before, so I'm happy that we
apparently hit all the major points in our own arguments.

Lots of people liked !^ because it was shorter, and several people
noted that it allowed selecting multiple subjects, one of the main
distinctions that it has over :has().  (You have to write multiple
selectors to get the same behavior with :has().)

An *extremely* common argument people made for :has() is that it's
easier to read and understand than an ASCII glyph is.  It's good to
note that the community feels this way - this means we're on the right
track with named combinators, too.

Lots of people liked the jQuery precedent of :has(), too.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 18:35:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 12 February 2014 18:35:43 UTC