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

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

From: George Weilenmann <george.weilenmann@insightsoftware.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:34:40 +0000
To: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6831C5AB7FFA4047B0D01BD5BC2530B77411A9F2@mbx500-u1-lo-1.exch500.msoutlookonline.net>
I have not had the frequent occasion to use the :has() from jQuery.
But in terms of readability it definitely is preferential to me as well.

George Weilenmann
IT Help Desk | CRM Customization | Portal Developer
[Description: cid:82D8368C-56BA-48C5-ADFE-8F6F70761408] Office +1 303.800.5027| Mobile +1 720.940.0974
5613 DTC Parkway, Suite 570, Greenwood Village, CO 80111

[Fans of InsightSoftware.com]<http://www.insightsoftware.com/fans/?utm_source=Employees&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Fans&utm_campaign=Signature>

From: Sebastian Zartner [mailto:sebastianzartner@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:23 PM
To: Tab Atkins Jr.
Cc: Daniel Glazman; www-style list
Subject: Re: Selector Syntax Survey - subject indicator vs :has()

On 12 February 2014 19:34, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com<mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com<mailto: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.

Funny how many people refer to ! being a negator in other languages. Even if I daily program in languages using ! as negator, I'd not automatically conclude that the exclamation mark would have the same meaning inside a CSS selector. Also I'd like to know how the results would have been if jQuery didn't have :has().
Anyway, the results seem to be pretty clear on this.
Sebastian
Disclaimer: This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system.

Our company accepts no liability for the content of this email, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided. Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

InsightSoftware.com is a Trading Name of 'InsightSoftware.com Limited',Registered in England No. 2860790 at 53-55 Uxbridge Road, Ealing, London, W5 5SA, United Kingdom, VAT Number: GB 766 8160 95


image001.png
(image/png attachment: image001.png)

image002.png
(image/png attachment: image002.png)

Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 22:35:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:19 UTC