- From: James Addison via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 21:31:07 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Thank you! There are two things I'm seeking clarification on: one is about how the feature works, and the second is a process question about whether the `selectors-4` spec supersedes `selectors-5`. The use-case relates to table-of-contents hyperlinks, and it would be convenient to use CSS selectors to choose hyperlinks where the browser can remain within the current document (simply scrolling/moving to the hyperlink fragment if it is present, or top of the page for same-document links that have no fragment). Given that the spec here (`S4`) changed to _include_ anchor equality in the comparison -- from the original (deferred to `S5`) where it did not -- my sense about the hyperlink-matching logic specified in each would work for a hypothetical scenario is: ``` Browser location: index.html#toc-item-2 CSS selector: a:local-link Selected? S5 S4 Anchor Target (a href) ---------------------------------- [x] [ ] index.html [x] [x] index.html#toc-item-2 [x] [ ] index.html#toc-item-5 ``` (I place S5 before S4 in the column to reflect their chronological publication order) In the use case I'm investigating, the S5 behaviour initially seems like what is required - a way to select links that should not require the browser to navigate to a different page. In terms of compatibility, it feels to me that S5 in combination with the `:target` pseudo-selector could provide the results specified by S4 -- a selector of `a:local-link:target`, for example, to describe links that are to the current document and that are also the current browser navigation location. I can't see an equivalent compatibility route if S4 is implemented first -- it selects fewer items, and so there is not a way to expand that out to achieve the S5 results. -- GitHub Notification of comment by jayaddison Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2010#issuecomment-2241780319 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Sunday, 21 July 2024 21:31:09 UTC