- From: Stuart Ballard <sballard@netreach.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:11:15 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Michael Day <mikeday@yeslogic.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> Maybe the proposal should be changed to imply the # at the start instead
> of at the end (so :matches() without # becomes equivalent to :has()).
Wouldn't that make :has() completely redundant? As in, we only need to
introduce the one piece of new syntax instead of two? Is there anything
you could put in the parentheses of :has() that would not be identical
in this version of :matches()?
I always thought the name "has" was awkward to describe it's proposed
purpose, and "matches" seems much better to me.
(I'd also propose that syntax like :matches(+ foo) NOT be allowed - so
that whatever is in the parentheses must be a self-contained selector,
like :matches(# + foo). The behavior of :matches without a # would be
equivalent to adding "#" AND a 'descendent selector' (the space in "a b
{foo}"), not just a "#", at the beginning.)
Stuart.
--
Stuart Ballard, Programmer
NetReach - Internet Solutions
(215) 283-2300, ext. 126
http://www.netreach.com/
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 15:11:19 UTC