- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:55:56 -0600
- To: Eduard Pascual <herenvardo@gmail.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Eduard Pascual <herenvardo@gmail.com> wrote: > However, I don't think we need to bloat the syntax with different > names for each version: simply use the generic name, like :has() or > :matches(), now for the limited version, requiring the argument to > begin with ">" (or maybe allowing also "+"), and when implementations > of the full version become a reality the spec can just lift the > restriction. The problem with that is that it's too easy for an author to accidentally slip into the bad-performance version just because they forgot to put the ">" at the beginning. Even if we figure out an acceptable way to handle the general case, the child case will still be much more efficient, so it's a good thing to make it easier to use that. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 22 January 2010 13:56:46 UTC