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

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

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:44:57 -0400
Message-ID: <4AC2AA09.1070506@mit.edu>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
[dropping the mailing list this doesn't belong on; I have no idea why 
you chose to ignore the explicit reply-to header on my mail]

On 9/29/09 8:06 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Which means that while you can omit the whole thing, you can't just
>> omit the '*' and include the namespace component, Webkit's behavior to
>> the contrary notwithstanding.
> What seems strictly necessary is to better the CSS 3 Selectors text
> which, by quoting CSS21, is focusing on the "*" character:
> "If the universal selector is not the only component of a sequence of
> simple selectors, the * may be omitted."

Ah, yes.  That should say "the universal selector may be omitted", 
presumably, though then it should also say something about how the 
universal selector needs to be in the default namespace for that to 
work.  I agree that sentence is just wrong.

Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 00:45:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:39 UTC