- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:27:45 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Thursday 2013-04-04 00:51 +0000, Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > CSS-ISSUE-320: Profile :matches() / :not() for fast vs. complete implementation [Selectors Level 4] > > http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/320 > > Raised by: Elika Etemad > On product: Selectors Level 4 > > People keep being confused about :matches() and :not()'s intention > to allow full complex selectors. The only reason they're not > allowed is perf, so let's just make two profiles for Selectors and > let things like Selectors API and PDF processors implement the > full version. What's the performance problem with combinators here? Allowing :not(div p) doesn't seem particularly worse than "div p" on its own (except that :not() in general can't use some of the filtering optimizations that we can use for "div p"); I think advanced authors are aware that such selectors can be slower. Or are you talking about allowing some use of combinators inside of :not() or :matches() that allows the "subject" to no longer be the last piece of the selector? (That's a separate distinction already made between the "fast" and "complete" profiles, though.) -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 13:28:12 UTC