W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2009

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

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:58:47 +1100
Message-ID: <4B2830C7.6020208@css-class.com>
To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
CC: Www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Bert Bos wrote:
> The specification is here:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-css3-selectors-20091215/

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



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.


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


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.


Alan http://css-class.com/
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2009 00:59:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:41 UTC