- From: Barry van Oudtshoorn <bvanoudtshoorn@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:05:27 +0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAFsVuTN83VzkzHVH1uuMNO_Fvp_mgeUOp6ZEsbqP5_jsmFZQbA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:57 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote: > On 10/06/2011 01:53 AM, Barry van Oudtshoorn wrote: > >> >> 1. This breaks the natural reading order of CSS selectors: the right-most >> "part" of a selector no longer identifies the >> element to which the rules should be applied. >> > > Your reversed-combinator suggestion has the problem that the selector chain > no longer proceeds forwards through the element tree. > I personally find that more disorienting. Hmm, I guess it's a matter of personal opinion, then. To my mind, the purpose of both proposals is to lift the restriction that the selector chain progresses forwards through the tree. Personally, I find reversed combinators no more disorienting than, for example, the '../' syntax used in XPath and file systems. (See the XPath recommendation -- particulary the section on axes -- for details. [1]) Whichever syntax is implemented, it's likely that at some point, in order to actually apply the rules, the element tree will be traversed backwards. I guess that the question boils down to how explicit that reversal should actually be. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath/#axes > > 2. It provides a very specific solution to a very specific problem, rather >> than a generic, extensible solution. Using this >> syntax, how would one, for example, identify a preceding direct sibling of >> an element E? >> > > $* + E > > It has the same structure as * + E, except instead of the E you pick the * > as the subject. That makes sense. I guess I should've thought through that example a bit more -- I should've been able to come up with that! The question of what symbol to use is still open; someone suggested ? so the > latest > editor's draft is using that since there were objections to $. > Hmm... I think that I dislike the question mark more than the dollar sign, as it implies some form of conditionality or optionality. I would suggest that the exclamation mark be used in its place -- as far as I'm aware, it's only used in '!important'. -- Barry van Oudtshoorn http://barryvan.com.au/ bvanoudtshoorn@gmail.com
Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 03:06:09 UTC