W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2008

RE: [css3] "Selectors that People Actually Use"

From: Alan Gresley <alan1@azzurum.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 07:14:18 -0700
To: Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080219071418.34b83c2f3c9bef00757a2c62c0fb7450.fbb19c4fd9.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

Ambrose Li wrote:
> On 18/02/2008, Alan Gresley wrote:
> > Should it really matter. What wrong with a site if all browsers use CSS differently, and have buggy support or have no support for selectors. This thread is not about the handling of selectors, it's about the selectors which John Resig doesn't see useful.
> I probably wasn't clear enough. But my point is that the reason
> John Resig finds certain selectors not useful might be precisely
> because authors might be worried that they are not handled
> correctly. Unknown behaviour = not useful. IMHO whether or
> not selectors are useful (in practice) are intimately tied to the
> perception of whether they are correctly handled by all (or at
> least most) browsers.

Since JQuery and CSS are similar in some ways, wouldn't it benefit both languages if John Resig was to subscribe to this list.

Is this the CSS WG, the same group that is developing CSS3. Will this "not useful" belief by authors hold true in 2016, when browsers are beginning to implement CSS4. We have static languages which involve and are refined.

3. XML

I know nothing of ECMAScrpt or SVG.

Then there is this majestic language of CSS which is progressive and is never static. It is developed in a way that allows for new properties to be constantly added and styles web documents from 1994 to way into the future. When developing it, it is to be kept in mind that what is added should allow for progressive enhancement, so we must constantly be aware of past and future implementations. The future should be treated with a greater perspective. Unknown behaviors by browsers should not be considered in this argument.

> Of course whether or not the selectors in question are useful
> or not in theory


> (i.e., whether they have valid use cases)

There are use cases and the are non-use cases but all the advanced selectors are behaving as they should (we hope). Advanced selectors and there use cases can be analyzed from use cases and non-use cases equally. Why the bias for just use cases? Then we have non-valid use cases and non-valid non-use cases .....

> is a different matter. So perhaps he is not talking about the
> same kind of usefulness as we talk about.
> -- 
> cheers,
> -ambrose

How many use cases do we know compared to the larger pool of unknown use cases? Why should we question these advanced selectors usefulness at this "present" time?



Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2008 14:14:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:34 UTC