- From: Stewart Brodie <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:43:49 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
Sophie Dennis <sophie@cayenne.co.uk> wrote: > > >On Monday 2006-07-10 14:06 -0700, Garrett Smith wrote: > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/ > > > > > > E:empty - an E element that has no children (including text nodes) > > > > > > If you really want to include text nodes, the definition must be > > > changed. > > > > > > >No, the "including" refers to "children", not "element". > > > >It could be clearer, but that change would make it worse, not better. > > Perhaps: > > E:empty - an E element that has no child elements or text nodes "child elements" suffers the same problem. The easiest way to clarify it, if it's really necessary, could be to replace "children" with "child nodes" or use a DOM method to describe it: E:empty - an E element that has no child nodes E:empty - an E element that has no child nodes. i.e. E.firstChild == null Once text nodes are mentioned explicitly like that, it makes me start to wonder whether comment nodes cause E:empty to not match too (and cdata-section nodes, comment nodes, processing-instruction et al for that matter) -- Stewart Brodie Software Engineer ANT Software Limited
Received on Tuesday, 11 July 2006 20:30:13 UTC