Re: [CSS2.1] Selectors

fantasai wrote:

> Preceding Siblings
> ------------------
> S5.1 <>:
> # E + F      Matches any F element immediately preceded by an element E.
> preceded by a _sibling_ element, you mean; E + F shouldn't match if
> E is the parent of F.

Right, this "preceded" makes reference to the document's tree, not
the traversal order... I don't think anyone has made the confusion here.

> Adjacent Elements
> -----------------
> S5.7<>: 
> # In some contexts, adjacent elements generate formatting objects
> # whose presentation is handled automatically (e.g., collapsing
> # vertical margins between adjacent boxes). The "+" selector
> # allows authors to specify additional style to adjacent elements.
> This paragraph is confusing and, imo, useless. Take it out.

I agree.

> Attribute Selectors
> -------------------
> S5.8<>: 
> # CSS 2.1 allows authors to specify rules that match attributes
> # defined in the source document.
> Given the way "matches" is defined in section 5.1, this
> sentence should be reworded. The selector doesn't match
> the attribute, it matches the element *with* the attribute.

Good catch.

> You tell authors here what not to do with classes. One
> reads this warning, but then what? There's no advice on
> what *to* do! Tantek's post "A Touch of Class" [1]
> explains classes particularly well; adding a few key
> points from that would turn this block into a more useful
> redirect.

Well, this is a specification, not a tutorial...

> ID Selectors
> ------------
> S5.9<>:
> # Document languages may contain attributes that are
> # declared to be of type ID. What makes attributes of
> # type ID special is that no two such attributes can
> # have the same value; whatever the document language,
> # an ID attribute can be used to uniquely identify its
> # element...
> Since CSS could conceivably be used for a non-SGML-based
> document language, I suggest defining IDs as "unique
> identifiers" first and relating them to type ID later.
> Another advantage is that you start the definition with
> generic English rather than specific code.

You have a use case in mind ? Are we really going to see gml or
nroff markup styles with CSS ? I doubt it's worth making the change.

"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a
completely unintentional side effect."          Linus Torvalds

Received on Saturday, 11 October 2003 03:50:50 UTC