[csswg-drafts] [selectors-4] a question or concern regarding anchor links

jonathantneal has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [selectors-4] a question or concern regarding anchor links ==
Is there an enforced pattern to naming the anchor ids used to link to specific sections in the selectors specification? Or, do they just vary inconsistently, as they seem to me? I’m sorry if I misunderstand the logic.

For instance, the section for `:not()` uses `#negation`, `:something` uses `#relational`, and `:matches()` uses `#matches`. This seems like a *conceptual* pattern. However, the section for `:dir()` uses `#the-dir-pseudo`, `:lang()` uses `#the-lang-pseudo`, and `any-link` uses `#the-any-link-pseudo`. This seems like a *literal pattern*, and appears most often in the specification, except when it’s dropped for `:focus-visible` (`#focus-visible-pseudo`) or `:focus-within` (`#focus-within-pseudo`). There are other exceptions, still, like `:drop` and `:drop()` which use `#drag-pseudos`, while `:playing` and `:pause` use `#video-state`.

I’m sorry to even concern you with this, but I would like to better understand and predict these ids in order to easily discuss concepts online, name polyfills, file caniuse requests, add cssdb features, etc.

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2255 using your GitHub account

Received on Friday, 2 February 2018 01:13:48 UTC