Re: [css3-selectors] Selectors is a Proposed Recommendation

Bert Bos wrote:
(snip)
> The specification is here:
> 
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-css3-selectors-20091215/

(snip)
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-css3-selectors-20091215/issues-lc-2009
> 
> 
> 
> For the CSS WG,
> Bert


Regarding.

<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-css3-selectors-20091215/#attribute-substrings>


And for [att^=val], [att$=val] and [att*=val] where it says.

# If "val" is the empty string then the selector does not
# represent anything.


For [att^=val] and [att$=val].

Matched: Firefox 2, Firefox 3.0.15, Opera, IE7~8 and Safari 3.

Not Matched: Firefox 3.0.1~3.0.13 (I think) and Safari 4.


For [att*=val].

Matched: Opera, IE7~8 and Safari 3.

Not Matched: Firefox 2~3.0.15 and Safari 4.


<http://css-class.com/test/css/selectors/att/attribute-substring-match-empty.htm>


With negation, the negative (opposite) results are seen.

<http://css-class.com/test/css/selectors/att/not-attribute-substring-no-match-empty.htm>


I have not downloaded Firefox 3.5 for checking.

Why change what negation does when there are empty strings. What appear 
between the two quote "" is a *infinite number of concatenations*. All a 
browser is doing is following the logical behavior of mathematics.


<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Apr/0117.html>


-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/