Re: [Selectors] Clarify when universal selector may be omitted

Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>
> 
>> As it is, the reader must himself/herself mentally insert a "not" 
>> after the second "is". It could in fact be better to skip the second 
>> "is" -  then it becomes clear that the "is not" is valid here also.

I don't understand what you're saying here at all. There should most
definitely not be a "not" after the second "is".

> To clarify the last point. Contracting somewhat, the spec now says:
> 
> NOW: If "*" *is not* the only component (i.e. w/o prefix)
>     OR *is* immediately followed by a pseudo-element,
>     THEN  the "*" may be dropped.
> 
> Is this meant to have the following meaning: ?
> 
> ?!? If "*" *is neither* the only component (i.e. w/o prefix)
>    *nor* immediately preceding a pseudo-element,
>    THEN  the "*" may be dropped.
> 
> If the answer is "yes, this is what is meant",

Yes, that is what is meant, and it is completely *unambiguous*
due to the grammatical structure created by the use of "is" in
both places, which is why I'm not dropping the "is".

>                                                then I suggest using the 
> "neither - nor" wording that I used above. *OR* I suggest skipping the 
> second "is":
> 
> NEW If "*" *is not* the only component (i.e. w/o prefix)
>    OR followed by a pseudo-element,
>    THEN  the "*" may be dropped.
> 
> Because as it is, the second condition could be read as
> 
>    OR [if it] is followed = OR *when* it is followed [etc]

I am not making this change. If this minor editorial issue
is important to you and you want to insist on your suggested
change, please reply by 9am Pacific Wednesday morning so that
I can raise it to the CSS Working Group.

~fantasai

Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 00:42:02 UTC