Re: comments on CSS3 Selectors from XSL Working Group

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
> 
> We must therefore once again[2] urgently request that the document be 
> titled "CSS Selectors" and not simply "Selectors" or the equally 
> misleading "W3C Selectors". It is simply too confusing to label any one 
> of the various mechanisms with the undistinguished title "Selectors"

The working group discussed your comment.

We agree with the responses to your e-mail -- Selectors is a generic 
language that applies to more than just CSS (and more than just XML, for 
that matter). Adding qualifications ("CSS", "XML", "W3C") to the name just 
makes the name more misleading.

We do not really understand what you have against "Selectors".


> We would also like to draw your attention to the opening paragraph of 
> the abstract in that draft. It says, in part:
> 
>    Selectors have been optimized for use with HTML and XML, and
>    are designed to be usable in performance-critical code.
> 
> We object to the characterization expressed in the above sentence. It 
> could be construed as implying that CSS selectors are somehow superior 
> to all other forms of selection in terms of performance.

It could, but only by making wild leaps in logic. The statement is 
factually correct and makes no assertions regarding other languages.


Please let us know if, as is likely, this does not satisfy your request. 
In so doing, please give us much more detailed reasoning so that we can 
fully consider your request. For example, if you object to this decision, 
please explain how "Selectors" is a poor name choice, while taking into 
account the fact that Selectors is a generic mechanism that applies to any 
tree-based structure, not just XML or HTML, and that it can be used both 
for matching nodes in a tree and for representing nodes to be created.

Cheers,
-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 18:17:26 UTC