- From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 01:52:58 +0700
- To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-microxml@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CANz3_EacLC0EHcGpSkZ_XfP9=D-xiKDSgVA886zp3dGO1Ws+bg@mail.gmail.com>
I didn't mean to imply that this schema language would use CSS selectors. My point was just that in cases where you want a standalone XPath-/CSS selector-like language for MicroXML (eg in the context of a DOM), CSS selectors would in my view be a good choice (mainly because of familiarity to the average developer). On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM, James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> wrote: > >> I'm not familiar with level 4. Level 3 is the first level that has most >> of the stuff that you really need. >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> On Dec 18, 2012 6:44 AM, "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:35 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> You once said that you thought the appropriate MicroXPath was XPath >>> 1.0, >>> >> presumably modulo namespaces, PIs, etc. Have you had any further >>> >> thoughts about that? >>> > >>> > >>> > Though it pains me to say it, I suspect the most appropriate >>> MicroXPath is CSS3 selectors. >>> > >>> > James >>> >>> >>> Out of curiosity - why do you specifically point to L3 above? I'm >>> wondering because some of the branches of this thread go off in directions >>> which include symbols which have been potentially slotted for L4 and up... >>> >> >> > Sorry, I didn't mean to take the above offlist... adding the group back. > > Presumably the idea would just be to base it on the most robust CSS > Selectors version and hopefully avoid any footguns that would prevent > improvement by using improved selectors as they became available. With > that in mind, I was just mentioning to be cautious in symbol use as some of > these (?, ! and $ for example) have/are being considered for identifying > the subject of a selector (in the case where you do not want it to be the > last thing in the selector) - and there might be some other gotchas as > well... > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors4/ > http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/selectors4 > http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/selectors <- post level 4 stuff > > -- > Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com > >
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 18:53:46 UTC