- From: Peter Nederlof <peter.nederlof@lostboys.nl>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:56:08 +0200
- To: "Joao Eiras" <joao.eiras@gmail.com>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Well, if no grouping is implied, it would indeed select all paragraphs except the first, of divs that contain blockquotes. But the point is that without delimeters it's an ambiguous notation at best, take: div < (blockquote p) ~ p This would select paragraphs following divs that contain blockquote childs with 1 or more paragraph descendants, and: div < (blockqoute p ~ p) ... would select divs with blockqoute childs that contain 2 or more paragraph descendants. Such grouping is (in my opinion) essential to the nature of the proposed selector functionality. Better yet, there's hardly any difference left in the notation between :matches() and < (), except that < implies childs, and :matches() doesn't directly imply any related selector... which is why I favor the latter. It makes perfect sense. I honestly don't mean to offend anyone, but I'm actaully a bit disappointed that this discussion is smothered with off-topic debates on who guards the CSS temple, and the apparently accepted fact that implementors ultimately decide what makes it to the spec, and what doesn't. Obviously any technical argument should be taken into account when considering functionality, but mere "difficulty" is no show stopper argument. Inefficiency is, but it has already been pointed out that a predecessor selector doesn't have to be inefficient at all. Lack of both existing and supported selectors forces us to resort to inconceivably slower javascript based selector methods to select the elements we wish to style. If anything, the sheer amount of such scripts out there is proof not only of the lack of CSS support by various browsers, but also of desired features (and of course it's proof of the awesome community around front-end tech, the rise of CSS over he last decade or so is truly amazing). :) Peter. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Joao Eiras [mailto:joao.eiras@gmail.com] Verzonden: Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:33 AM Aan: Peter Nederlof Onderwerp: Re: Selector for parent/predecessor? Peter Nederlof <peter.nederlof@lostboys.nl> wrote: > A < selector would obviously be flawed. Selectors will become unreadable > and unparsable; There's no telling what this would return: > div < blockquote p ~ p { } That selector returns, for each group of siblings, all paragraphs except the 1st :) But that requires a O(n*n) resolution time to match it against the dom, unless the parser implements some heuristic to optimize it. I've found many situations where a parent selector would make sense and be extremely necessary, not only when building my one web application, but too when designing my custom user-agent style sheet for some 3rd party website. And I agree with Peter: the inefficiency or misuse of browser features isn't a valid argument to hold back the evolution of standards.
Received on Thursday, 24 August 2006 08:56:17 UTC