W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2003

Re: [CSS2.1] Selectors

From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 07:22:13 -0400
Message-ID: <3F87E7E5.9040906@escape.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

Daniel Glazman wrote:

> 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.

Still, it would be better to be precise.

>> 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...

You're going through the trouble of making the distinction
between good use of classes and bad use of classes already.
You might as well do a useful job of it.

>> 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.

It's worth making the change for editorial reasons alone, IMO.

Received on Saturday, 11 October 2003 07:28:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:09 UTC