Re: [selectors4] Should the reference combinator really be a combinator?

On 03/07/2012 01:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> There are some other relationships that we could potentially express
> as combinators but have instead chosen to represent as pseudoclasses,
> such as :col(), but that's because the relationship there is very
> specific to HTML (and other languages that have tables which are
> represented in row-major form, plus childless column elements) and not
> general-purpose.  The reference combinator is potentially
> multi-purpose.

Actually that's an interesting point. Hixie's original proposal for
:column() used // as a combinator instead. Using a combinator there
does avoid the branching possibilities present with :column(), and
might therefore make more sense. What do you think?


Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 22:59:16 UTC