Re: Selector for parent/predecessor?

Peter Nederlof wrote:
> In my opinion you're sending out the wrong message if the argument for
> not implementing (or considering) a spec, is that it may be difficult to
> implement, and assumed inefficient at best when implemented. The less
> there is to support, the faster the system. The fastest implementation
> therefore supports next to nothing ... 

Sure, so it becomes a matter of balance, as I mentioned in my last mail.

> As an everyday user of CSS I actually can't fathom why it never made it
> to a spec. Now, if only everything in the specs were supported! ;)

It never made it into a spec because implementors have thus far said they have 
no plans to support it.


Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 15:34:27 UTC