- From: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 20:38:26 +0100 (MET)
- To: "David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Dec 2, 5:03pm, David Perrell wrote: > Compatibility issues aside, the syntax of section 6.6 of the draft makes > little sense to me. The use of the tilde is completely incoherent among 6.6, > 6.5 and 6.3.1. Hmm. Several folks have said this. > Such ad hoc "Netscapisms' should not be in CSS. They are not Netscapisms. They are an attempt to produce the richer selection mechanisms that designers often ask us for, while retaining the possibility of a fast and memory-efficient progressively rendering CSS implementation > Wouldn't attribute selectors (section 6.3) offer a better mechanism for > narrowing context? They help but they don't allow you to indicate direct parent-child relationships. > I'm not convinced your examples are intuitive, but > something along those lines would be better than unmatched bracketing with > forward slashes Yes, folks seem to want a better bracketing mechanism > and tildes with context-sensitive meanings. Tilde means a "closer/nearer" operator, regardless of context. Perhaps that wasn't explained so well. -- Chris Lilley, W3C [ http://www.w3.org/ ] Graphics and Fonts Guy The World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/people/chris/ INRIA, Projet W3C chris@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 93 65 79 87 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 4 December 1997 14:40:14 UTC