- From: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:00:56 +1000
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, John Resig <jresig@mozilla.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@mozilla.com>
Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote: > >> *Scoped Queries* >> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5860 >> >> This has been discussed extensively in the past. Basically, the idea is >> that the selector would be evaluated in the scope of the element, in a way >> more compatible with how libraries like JQuery work. This slightly >> different from the :scope pseudo-class proposal, see bug for details. >> > > Note that what makes the ">strong, >em" selector (which apparently > some libraries support) hard to support spec-wise is that that is not > in fact valid CSS syntax. It's certainly possible to define behavior > for it, it's pretty clear to me how it's intended to work, but it > would mean specifying our own syntax. > It is clear how it is intended to work, but it is less powerful than a :scope selector. I suggest it is a low priority feature. > However if supporting commaseparated queries is critical for libraries > then I see no other choise. We'll one way or another have to specify > our own syntax, though it can be heavily based on the productions in > the Selector spec. > > / Jonas > > > Libraries already parse selector queries anyway. And some of them add non-standard selectors and presumeably will continue to do so. I don't think it is an issue.
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2009 01:01:46 UTC