- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:27:00 -0600
- To: Alan Gresley <alan1@azzurum.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Alan Gresley wrote:
> It would be shorter still if we just had.
>
> div[id]
Hey, that's what I said when you were insisting on your id*="" thing. ;)
> Anyway div:not([id]) and div:not([id*=""]) are treated different in particular circumstances when using universal selectors and chained selectors.
Like what? I know Gecko treats them differently: :not([foo*=""]) always matches
in Gecko right now. Are there other UAs where those two selectors behave
differently?
> You could also have a string of selectors.
>
> div.x, dix.y {} /* legacy style */
> div[id="x"] {} /* x special style */
> div[id="y"] {} /* y special style */
> div[id*=""], div:not([id*=""]) {} /* progressive enhancement general style */
None of that requires *=, though. And progressive enhancement for what,
exactly? Trying to lock out browsers that just don't support *= at all?
-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 03:26:44 UTC