- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:35:29 -0700
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
...
>
> var elm = document.getElementById("foo");
> elm.querySelector(">em, >strong");
> ems.querySelector("+p");
> ems.querySelector("~p");
>
> These are pre-processed and interpreted as being equivalent to
> ":reference>em, :reference>strong", ":reference+p" and ":reference~p",
> respectively, where :reference matches the element elm. This is
> designed to be more compatible with how JavaScript libraries operate.
>
> Because the descendant combinator can't work in the same way, I've used
> the exclamation point character as an indicator that it is intended to
> be a scoped selector.
>
> e.g.
> elm.querySelector("!div div, div p");
>
> That is interpreted as being equivalent to:
> ":reference div div, :reference div p".
>
> This character was chosen because it currently can't appear at the
> beginning of a conforming group of selectors. But it also makes the
> assumption that future selector syntax will never allow a selector to
> begin with an exclamation point, or at least not in a way that would
> clash with its use here.
I believe that it is better to use "standalone colon" as a designator of
the :lookup-root (a.k.a. :reference or :principal)
elm.querySelector(": div div, : div p");
elm.querySelector(": > em, :> strong, :+code");
Such construction definitely will not conflict with any future selectors.
More strong (grammatically) alternative is "::" - double colons.
>
> I would like to find out if the CSSWG finds this acceptable, or if I
> should try to find an alternative solution.
>
--
Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 16:35:56 UTC