Re: Selector for parent/predecessor?


Ah...I misunderstood you. When you said "ample evidence" I thought you
were referring to studies, reports, statistics...and I was saying that
I was happy to have my view changed on reading such material. But what
you meant was that in *your view*, authors are clueless, and you base
this on that fact that there are web pages out there that execute

So my point still stands; you can't be sure that authors cannot be
trusted with features that are denied them...since they don't actually
have those features available to them to use inefficiently!

Your view therefore remains a prejudice until proven, as of course,
does mine--but the difference is that I'm not arguing that everyone
will use these selectors efficiently, I'm simply arguing for choice.



On 21/08/06, Ian Hickson <> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> >
> > I don't see how there can be such evidence when choice is denied...but
> > I'm of course willing to be put right--send me the references and I'll
> > read the evidence.
> Just look at There are dozens of things that could be done to
> make that page load faster.
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
>       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Mark Birbeck
CEO Ltd.

t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232

Download our XForms processor from

Received on Monday, 21 August 2006 13:40:14 UTC