- From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 19:36:33 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
Bert Bos wrote: > > The CSS working group has published a new draft: > > CSS3 module: W3C selectors > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-css3-selectors-20010126 Re: 6.6.2 The target pseudo-class :target I can see the usefulness of styling targets, but how is the UA to know whether an element has been targeted or not? Anchors can be targeted from outside the document. Re: 6.4.3 Default attribute values in DTDs I can conclude from the example that either a) There is no mechanism for matching implicit attribute values and the example just illustrates a workaround. or b) The element selector, without an explicit attribute selector, matches only elements that have all attributes implicitly set to their default values. (Which is absurd.) Moreover, the example seems to contradict the third sentence ("W3C selectors should be implemented so that they work even if the default values are not included in the document tree."), which to me implies that a selector "form[method=get]" will match <form action="script.cgi"> Am I reading this correctly? It's very confusing. Re: 6.6.5 Structural pseudo-classes Re: :nth-___ pseudo-classes Syntax being as: :nth-child(an+b) where a and b are integers When you have an "nth-child", it implies that the child will be the nth child. In the parameter, n represents not the index of the selected child, but a counter that increments by one until an+b > number of children. Essentially, there are two variables here--the index of the selected child(ren) and the counter, both referred to as n. I doubt many people will analyze the syntax like that, but I just thought I should bring it up... Aside from that, I think the syntax is much easier to follow than multiple parameters; certainly easier to remember. ^_^ Re: :nth-last-___ psuedo-classes Am I correct in assuming that negative parameters to nth-____ were deemed too mathmatical for CSS? IMO, using negative numbers is easier to remember than mulitple pseudo-classes, especially since they probably won't be very commonly used. Just a :last-___ should be enough, no? Re: 7. Pseudo-elements <blockquote> For compatibility reasons with existing stylesheets, user agents must also accept the one-colon previous notation. This compatibility is not required for the new pseudo-elements introduced in CSS level 3. </blockquote> Just for clarity, I'd recommend rewriting this as "For compatibility with existing stylesheets, user agents must also accept the previous one-colon notation for pseudo-elements introduced in CSS levels 1 and 2. This comatibility is not required for the new pseudo-elements introduced in CSS level 3." It's a minor change, but you don't have to analyze the text as much to get the gist of it. Re: parent selector There doesn't seem to be a way of selecting the parent element or any of the other things allowed by the previous draft's :subject modifier. I didn't get around to actually /reading/ the draft yet, so I might've missed it, but I think that if you're planning to put it in any version of CSS, you should introduce a subject modifier in this one; it probably won't get in the implementations for another five-ten years otherwise. =P Re: column-child One thing I would really like to see is a way of selecting descendants of table columns. Since CSS is based on the document tree, that's not possible, but.. *sigh* ~_~
Received on Saturday, 27 January 2001 19:35:44 UTC