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

Re: [selectors-l4] a crazy observation?

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 08:33:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jdcfGJGUFY3iru_-2qFEcH=nv03XEpjVwtppigwj_EGPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins, Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Jul 12, 2013 1:04 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That isn't what i am proposing at all though Tab.  I am merely proposing
> > that prioritizing a means for extension is time better spent than
debating
> > whether we can or cannot implement fairly specific and potentially
> > problematic features in CSS...
>
> I don't believe the two impede each other in any significant way, and
> thus there's no need to punt one to get the other.  We don't do things
> linearly.
>
> ~TJ

There is nothing technically limiting, that wasn't my meaning.  In practice
though we all prioritize our limited time so it isn't like there is no cost
expense that doesn't affect the other.  I would be very happy to begin this
either way though.  It seemed to me a few things added up:  1.  Qsa/css
split is undesirable here 2.  It seems perf-wise no implementer has
acceptable answers and don't want to risk 3. A few of these have been among
the longest discussed and maybe controversial in some respects to about
just what they are and how they should work.  I was simply suggesting that
an enabling method to allow author extension may help on all of those
points (and more) without setting a split precedent - and do so in a way
which delivers author value faster and in a forward compat way.
Received on Saturday, 13 July 2013 12:33:42 UTC

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