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: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 18:00:19 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-362017463-1517421618-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The Working Group just discussed `[selectors4] Name the "functional pseudo-class like :matches() with 0 specificity"`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: Publish a new WD for Selectors adding the open items as issues.`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [selectors4] Name the "functional pseudo-class like :matches() with 0 specificity"<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2143<br>
&lt;leaverou> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2143#issuecomment-360586470<br>
&lt;dael> leaverou: We resolved a month ago to add a pseudoclass :is . There was consern that that's logical opposite of not. Proposal is we could rename matches to is, we could rename matches, we could combine both properties. There were a bunch of proposals for different names. I made a table with proposals ^<br>
&lt;dael> leaverou: Hoping we could do a straw poll and decide on name.<br>
&lt;dael> leaverou: I think best is to mix them into one pseucoclass of :is. Matchs was impl but it's not used and is only in Safari. It is considered rude to rename.<br>
&lt;fantasai> I don't think we can close on this fairly in the next 4 minutes...<br>
&lt;fantasai> 3 minutes<br>
&lt;dael> florian: rude isn't the best word, but there is inertia there and it's a lot to change.<br>
&lt;dael> smfr: I don't have a feel for how much matches is used.<br>
&lt;bradk> This could be a 30 minute discussion<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: We have 2 minutes. I'd like us to defer this since there has been a lot of interesting discussion. And we should have info on existance of matches.<br>
&lt;dael> leaverou: I won't be able to be in next week, so defer 2 weeks.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Sure.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: This topic will take time. Let's point everyone to the issue so it's discussed.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: fantasai you wanted an updated WD?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Yeah, to selectors. There's a handful of open issues that are significant and they're marked in the draft.  I'd like to update the W3.org.<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Publish a new WD for Selectors adding the open items as issues.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: This topic should continue being discussed in the issue and once we're ready to resolve we'll bring it back. A couple of weeks from now sounds reasonable on timeframe.<br>
&lt;fantasai> Issues marked in the draft: https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors-4/#issues-index<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: That's the top of the hour. Any other publication resolutions? I don't see any.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Let's end here.<br>

GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2143#issuecomment-362017463 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2018 18:00:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:23 UTC