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

Re: [selectors4] Comma-separated attribute value selectors

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:28:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CADC=+jffxvt42B_r4J7rvEnkNEMuVp7HF9Rr71ZHewo+Fio=kQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote:

> Le 19/08/2013 19:51, fantasai a écrit :
>
>  There's an issue in the Selectors spec [1] on adding comma-separated
>> values
>> to the attribute selectors, as syntactic sugar, e.g.
>>
>>     [rel=next,prev] { ... }
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-**selectors4-20130502/#**
>> attribute-selectors<http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-selectors4-20130502/#attribute-selectors>
>>
>> This seems pretty straightforward and desirable to me. Does anyone think
>> we *shouldn't* add this? 'Cuz otherwise I think we should add it. :)
>>
>
> I assume this is equivalent to :matches([rel=next], [rel=prev]) ? Yes,
> that would be nice to have, and seems easy enough to implement (given
> support for :matches().)
>
> --
> Simon Sapin
>
>
FWIW, I don't think that it is bike-shedding or unnecessary sugar - I think
you could make a solid argument that it is actually important: If
developers can't read selectors because they are too complicated, then they
won't write them either and we wind up with bad ideas sticking around just
because its what people can deal with... I give that issue two thumbs up -
I recently experienced a case only days ago where this would have really
helped legibility and my case to use attribute selectors rather than adding
classes... Classes won out because the selector was just *so* much more
legible.

-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 15:29:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:03 UTC