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

RE: [CSSWG] Resolutions 2008-02-26

From: Alan Gresley <alan1@azzurum.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:06:51 -0700
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080229010651.34b83c2f3c9bef00757a2c62c0fb7450.a43bd184e1.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

fantasai wrote:

> Alan Gresley wrote:
> > fantasai wrote:
> > 
> >> Selectors
> >> ---------
> >>
> >>    - RESOLVED: Attribute substring matches against empty string invalid.
> >>        (Not sure what resolution was on |=, though; it might have been different
> >>        but wasn't recorded in minutes.)
> > 
> > So do you mean that
> > 
> > [class^=""]
> > [class$=""]
> > [class*=""]
> > 
> > should NOT match any elements with a class attribute? Or do you mean
> > that these  Attribute substrings should NOT match an empty string in
> > the HTML attribute of class?
> Neither. They cause the entire selector to be thrown out ("ignored").
> ~fantasai

I like that very much. It didn't make sense why they should have match in the first place. I pity those authors who have used such attribute substring selectors hacks to filter or target Gecko.

I should add that doesn't this lead to the situation that allow authors to separate present UA from future UA (possibly those currently in alpha or beta) that change their behavior in handling these selectors.

So to stop authors from using them improperly for Gecko (if that was the intent of the resolution) now results in them possibly being used more often in the future across a wide spectrum of UA.

I have only used them once in one test case and I will never use them again. I never needed to separate Safari, Opera or Gecko anyway, they are all good browsers. :-)


Received on Friday, 29 February 2008 08:07:05 UTC

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