W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2013

Re: [selector-profiles] confusion

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 09:01:43 -0700
To: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>, Fran├žois REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE04245A.7907%galineau@adobe.com>


On 7/11/13 3:39 AM, "Lea Verou" <lea@w3.org> wrote:

>On Jul 11, 2013, at 09:51, Fran├žois 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?

For polyfill writers I think this is just part of a larger problem:
invalid/unknown stuff is lost at the OM level. So it could be visible in
the OM but it'd have to be clear nothing was done with it. But if you do
that for selectors you'd also want to do it for unknown at-rules,
properties etc. Implementors are not so keen on burning memory on invalid
stuff most pages won't ever use though.

Received on Thursday, 11 July 2013 16:02:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:32 UTC