- From: Daniel Glazman <danielglazman@easyconnect.fr>
- Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 09:44:48 +0200
- To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
fantasai wrote: > Preceding Siblings > ------------------ > > S5.1 <http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030915/selector.html#q1>: > # 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<http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030915/selector.html#adjacent-selectors>: > > # 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<http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030915/selector.html#attribute-selectors>: > > # 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<http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030915/selector.html#class-html>: > # 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. </Daniel> -- "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