W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2012

Re: [css4-selectors] Focused descendant pseudo class

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:57:15 -0500
Message-ID: <CADC=+jckCkHejaH2OB-XHho0gcVihC8YOkdGtD0LTSeFXonWVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Eppstein <chris@eppsteins.net>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>, Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
It was actually confusing for a lot of people initially, thanks for
pointing that out :)

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Chris Eppstein <chris@eppsteins.net> wrote:
> !important must be very confusing for you!!!
> (note: the three ! at the end of my sentence should not be interpreted as
> negations)
> Hunt & pecked on my iPhone... Sorry if it's brief!
> On Jan 26, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd read ! as not, in fact I just did reviewing the thread. It even made me
> frown in confusion.
> On 26 January 2012 11:31, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes ,I understand the theory behind it.  However, theory and practice are
>> two different things.  As I said last year, in a quick straw poll of half a
>> dozen or so folks who use css on a daily basis, literally every one of them
>> thought that examples from the list, wiki and draft that I provided meant
>> "not".
>> Maybe it is just something that has to be well explained (I would
>> definitely add to the draft in that respect if kept) ...  I don't want to
>> lead this back into a huge discussion unless it is really time to have it.
>> My whole point there is merely that if there is any risk of causing
>> additional confusion, why not just pick another.
>> On Jan 26, 2012 4:34 AM, "Lea Verou" <leaverou@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 26/1/12 02:08, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>>> Yes, I recall that ... and several people read ! as "not" which is where
>>>> ? came from I think.  Its bike shedding to an extent, I admit, but I
>>>> don't think without value to discard problematic ideas early on in favor
>>>> of less problematic ones....
>>> ! as "not" is a prefix operator, not a postfix one, as the one currently
>>> defined in the selectors4 draft. So, FWIW I don't think there's going to be
>>> any such confusion.
>>> I actually thought it's a great idea that it was changed to a ! since
>>> that's what we use in natural language too in order to highlight something
>>> important.
>>> --
>>> Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou)
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 15:57:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:09 UTC