- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:21:22 -0700
- To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Anton Prowse wrote: > Congratulations on a very solid-looking specification! > > Here are the things that I noticed when reading through the document. > (Trivial editorial issues are listed separately at the end.) > > > 6.3. Attribute selectors > (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-css3-selectors-20090310/#attribute-selectors) > : > > # [att~=val] Represents an element with the att attribute whose > # value is a whitespace-separated list of words, one of which is > # exactly "val". If "val" contains whitespace, it will never represent > # anything (since the words are separated by spaces). Also if "val" is > # the empty string, it will never represent anything. > > Issue 1: Intuitively one might expect that if "val" were the empty > string it would represent an element with the att attribute whose value > is the empty string, rather than fail to represent anything. (HTML5 > currently proposes that <img>, <img alt=""> and <img alt="bar"> have > different semantics, for example, and so there is a use case for such > matching.) If such matching is truly not permitted, perhaps it is worth > explicitly stating that. (The equivalent situation with the > substring-matching attribute selectors seems reasonable as specified, > however.) See bz's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0153.html I'm going to close this issue as no change. Please let me know if you object. ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 12 October 2009 18:22:02 UTC