- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:34:57 -0700
- To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Alan Gresley wrote: > > Remember that all cases must be considered with negation in mind. Negation > itself must always be consistent. Where lights (green) are turned off > (orange) in one place, lights (blue) are turned on (red) in other places. :-) > > Think amount it > > :not([att^=val]) > :not([att$=val]) > :not([att*=val]) > > could be the new hacks of the future separating current implementations > from the implementations of the future (like the current betas). Is this > a Pandora's box that the CSSWG really wants to open? This is a very good point, and it's why we declared them all invalid in the first place. Personally, I'm fine with any resolution on these three and as far as I'm concerned the Selectors editors can make a decision on their own. But I'm leaning toward leaving [attr~=""] as valid and matching nothing, because that's what we already have interoperability on. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 22:35:32 UTC