- From: Eric A. Meyer <emeyer@sr71.lit.cwru.edu>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:47:54 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
At 17:32 +0100 11/22/1999, Daniel Glazman wrote a whole lot of stuff, part of which went something like this: >5.4 Type selectors > On my browser, all the document is sans-serif so it is > difficult to check if the first rule on H1 is applied > I run NS4.7 on Sparc+X Oops! I forgot to add a 'font-family' to the basic stylesheet for all pages. This has been corrected. >5.5 Descendant selectors > Typo in the title : DescEndant > I suggest "Descendant combinators" instead of "Descendant selectors" > and more generally use "combinators" when appropriate (5.5 -> 5.7) For page titles, I went with reproducing the section titles in the specification, but I'm willing to be talked out of that approach if enough people agree with you. >5.7 Adjacent selectors > I have one general comment on testing selectors that some browsers > don't implement : using - if it is correctly implemented - the > grouping mechanism and the error handling allows to build confirmed > tests : > E, F + G { color :red } > E and G are red if and only if the rule is not thrown away because > the selector's part is invalid... So, in other words, if some relevant elements are red, then the browser is parsing the selector side correctly, thus testing a browser's forward-compatible parsing with respect to selectors. Right? I just want to make sure I understand where you're going with this. >5.8.1 Attribute Selectors > A[HREF="http://www.w3.org/"] {color: maroon;} > > I suggest testing some other element/attribute pair... ...as in something like this? A[HREF="http://www.erehwon.zzz/"] {color: maroon;} >5.8.3 Class selectors > The first rule needs the implementation of the universal selector. > For instance NS4.7 on my platform correctly implements class > selectors but not "*". So your test is false but it should be true... > Suggestion : test only with a real type element selector A good point, but at the same time, I'm trying to reproduce the examples in the specification as much as possible. What do other people think: is this sort of cross-contamination of CSS2 features undesirable? Otherwise, good suggestions with which I agree. Look for changes in the next few hours. -- Eric A. Meyer - eam3@po.cwru.edu - http://www.cwru.edu/home/eam3.html Editor, Style Sheets Reference Guide http://style.webreview.com/ Coordinator, W3C CSS Test Suite http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/ Member, WSP CSS Technical Committee http://www.webstandards.org/
Received on Monday, 22 November 1999 11:51:12 UTC