- From: Paceaux via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 19:50:22 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@Crissov I would gently disagree with the assertion that `[attr="value" w]` being equivalent to `[attr~=value]` is a _strong_ counterargument. CSS offers many redundant options for producing selectors (after all, `[class="foo"]` is an equivalent of `.foo` and any nested selector lists are equivalents of `selector :is(selectorList)`. A new feature that incidentally overlaps with an existing one under one circumstance I don't think discredits the value of the new feature. The intent with a `w` flag is that there is intuitive sub-word matching within an attribute selector `[attr^=value w]` or `[attr$=value w]` are solutions to the problem, and the fact that `[attr~=value w]` is the same as `[attr~=value]` is a "happy mistake" as Bob Ross would say. -- GitHub Notification of comment by paceaux Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/14371#issuecomment-5415873995 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2026 19:50:23 UTC