- From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 04:27:32 -0800 (PST)
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
> --- "Eric A. Meyer" <emeyer@sr71.lit.cwru.edu> wrote: > > >5.5 Descendant selectors > > > I suggest "Descendant combinators" instead of > > "Descendant selectors" > > > and more generally use "combinators" when > > appropriate (5.5 -> 5.7) > > I would agree (with Daniel). According to the CSS > grammar. > > BODY P is a selector, with BODY a simple selector, P a > simple selector, and ' ' a combinator (defined thus in > the grammar: > : '+' S* | '>' S* | /* empty */) I think the use of descendant selector in the spec must be considered erroneous - if they are selectors, they are exactly the same as CSS-1 contextual selectors, and therefore the change is pointless, so therefore they must be combinators. ===== ---------------------------------------------------------- From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS)) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
Received on Monday, 7 February 2000 07:27:34 UTC