- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:54:17 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: "Nicholas C. Zakas" <html@nczonline.net>, www-style@w3.org
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > There are several issues here, one is that implementations typically > cannot tell selectors depending on unimplemented features and selectors > with actual syntax errors apart. Clearly the latter kind should trigger > some form of error response, typically an exception. Further, to avoid > the many constants in your proposal, and to also consider other possible > constraints (e.g., an implementation might support one id per selector > but not multiple selectors) and to support selectors from dynamic > sources, the testing function would take a whole selector, so ultimately > there would be little difference between the two approaches. You could > in fact implement your test function by checking for the exception. Oh come on. So to test if the childhood combinator ">" is implemented, you would query the elements matching a selector like "a > b" ??? That's a steamroller to kill a fly ! Performance-wise, it's just a nightmare ; time-wise in a large document, it's a second nightmare ; in terms of footprint, you should pick up a selector generating no results for the query. Björn, that is certainly one of the ugliest hacks ever proposed here... </Daniel> -- Co-Chair, W3C CSS WG
Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 12:54:55 UTC