- From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:13:50 -0500
- To: Christopher Jeffrey <chjjeffrey@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Probably helpful to include links to the original discussions which considered various things... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2000Jan/0152.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005Oct/0173.html -Brian On 3/6/12, Christopher Jeffrey <chjjeffrey@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I maintain a selector engine written in javascript[1]. I initially > didn't realize how awkward the reference combinator[2] was until I > tried to implement it. > > The problem was apparent after I wrote the first implementation: every > combinator represents some kind of positional relationship between two > elements. The reference combinator, on the other hand, does not. An > element that references another could be located anywhere in the tree. > This requires a kind of hacky workaround to implement; a special case, > just for the reference combinator. It's awkward to implement and > awkward to understand. It doesn't really fit the description of a > combinator. The syntax is strange, as well as inconsistent with the > combinators we've known for years, and I'm sure it's confusing even to > long time css users who are seeing it for the first time. > > On top of all this, there's the question of how practical and useful > it would be in reality. Would the average css user ever touch this > combinator, aside from the occasional label/input use-case? > > I just want to spark some discussion about this. > > [1]: https://github.com/chjj/zest > [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/selectors4/#idref-combinators > > -- > Christopher Jeffrey <chjjeffrey@gmail.com> > http://github.com/chjj > > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 17:14:24 UTC