On Jul 11, 2013 6:39 AM, "Lea Verou" <lea@w3.org> wrote: > > On Jul 11, 2013, at 09:51, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: > > That people will probably be even more confused to get selectors in their OM that actually do not work. Do not forget that if the selector show up in the CSSOM, you've no way to tell if it works or not except by looking at the results. You could not even use qSA to test support since qSA would support it. > > > > It seems already weird enough that there could be a difference between qSA and normal CSS, let's try not to add ghost selectors to the mix. > > Good point, that would break feature detection indeed :( > > I still think there should be some way for authors to opt in to using these selectors in a static manner, or the possibility to use polyfills that do so by utilizing qSA...somehow. It seems so wasteful to make the effort to support them and not let authors take advantage of them in regular CSS at all, even statically and/or with some limitations. Any thoughts on how that could happen? > > Cheers, > Lea We will make it happen, it just means we have to parse the CSS again... That is actually why i asked in the first place: it's going to be used in CSS either way...Native obviously could be faster.
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2013 13:17:35 UTC