- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:01:38 +0200
- To: "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 04:21:39 +0200, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > The one and only issue is the :root matching, and it makes perfect > sense here to say it matches the root of the subtree because there > is no other root element in this context ! The other option, ie match > the root of the document, is pure non-sense... In the scope, that > element is just not visible. Well, there have been several suggestions as to how it could work (this being a new one): * An implied descendant combinator at the start; * An implied child combinator at the start; * You select nodes from the whole Document, but only those part of the relevant subtree are returned (here :root matching the root of the Document does make sense); * You require :root at the start? Or something similar to that? >> that it's simpler and safer to restrict ourselves to Document at first, >> and extend to Element (or Node) later, rather than do the latter now >> and find out later that it introduces issues with what the CSS WG >> intends to do in the area. > > I thought your WG was more "disruptive" than that :-) > > More seriously, I really think this WD does not push far enough. > The cost is little. Your WG and the CSS WG could probably solve this > quickly. I'm happy for the CSS WG to suggest something sensible. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 30 September 2006 10:01:57 UTC