Re: ID selector via attribute?

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 Ballard, Programmer
NetReach - Internet Solutions
(215) 283-2300, ext. 126

Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 15:11:19 UTC