- From: Kelly <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:33:29 -0400
- To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
- Cc: mark.birbeck@x-port.net, www-style@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have to fully agree with that. For example, take nth-last-child(). Every time I check out the state of implementing nth-child() and nth-of-type(), I notice that developers don't want to touch them until someone figures out an efficient way of implementing nth-last-child() and nth-last-of-type() as well. The problem is, both run against the generic CSS processing model and will likely always be inefficient to implement. On top of that, I don't see use cases where having nth-last-child() would be more convinient than having nth-child() instead... I don't believe for a second that a parent selector would be difficult to implement (the XML model SAYS you'd have to know the parent of an element by the time you're ready to style it); the question is, would having a parent selector make authors ask for an ancestor selector? And then, what would happen if an author combined a parent selector with a dynamic pseudoclass, like :hover? On Sunday, August 20, 2006 7:10 pm, David Hyatt wrote: > A parent selector is also extremely difficult to implement, > especially dynamic cases. > > Any selector that cannot be determined correctly during an > incremental load of a document is evil, since you end up possibly > having to display incorrect results while loading before the true > style of the element can be accurately determined. This includes > selectors like :last-child for example. It's just terrible to have > any selectors in the language that can be wrong during a forward > parse of the document. > > Far and away the most efficient way to style elements is with simple > efficient selectors like class, tag and ID. All the extra selectors > do (especially most of the useless ones from CSS3) is provide authors > with more rope to hang themselves with. > > dave > (hyatt@apple.com) - -- http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ - Get Firefox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ - Reclaim Your Inbox! Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE6PFRvCLXx0V8XHQRAofrAJ9dUONeVxr4+lwJEOI3okaQMuBKIwCffXjE p/ulgr86XS5ZnopSWQ9J/1g= =teAS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Sunday, 20 August 2006 23:35:10 UTC