W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > January 2018

Re: [csswg-drafts] [selectors4] Name the “functional pseudo-class like :matches() with 0 specificity”

From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 21:13:00 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-355128667-1515013979-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> In the past we would keep bad things only to avoid breaking web compat. Now we're keeping bad things to not be "rude" to implementors? What fresh hell is this?! 😛

It's not a "bad" thing. It's a perfectly serviceable and appropriate name that people were happy with for multiple years; two people in this thread suddenly expressing a preference for a slightly different name does not make the original name bad.

Changing things that have shipped, are about to be shipped, that have tutorials written about them, etc., is expensive. It's one more thing a browser implementor has to do (even if it's "trivial", it's still a chunk of time out of someone's day to update the parser, the tests, maybe the DevTools support, and that chunk could have been spent doing something more valuable), and it means a lot of tutorial content in the wild is invalid and needs to be updated, or is just confusing in the future.  In other words, renaming is *not* free, and the longer the name lives out in the wild, the more expensive it becomes.  This doesn't mean we can't do it, but it does mean we need a decent reason to do so, and "some people suddenly decided they like this alternate name slightly better" is not a very good reason, or at least not a good enough one to override the costs in this case, in my opinion.

GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2143#issuecomment-355128667 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2018 21:13:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:22 UTC