Re: [selectors] feedback

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Anne van Kesteren <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <> wrote:
>>> For anything else, it seems like mapping to the DOM rather than
>>> mapping to CSS's simpler structure is just requiring more complexity
>>> than is really needed.
>> Except now you put the complexity (and bugs) on the dominant case.
> You keep asserting that there's complexity or bugs, but I'm having
> trouble seeing it.  Can you elaborate?

E.g., now the wording is that it's an element tree. If it was a pure
element tree however, there could be no other nodes in that tree,
meaning you cannot meaningfully define :empty or :blank.

> The paragraph transforming the DOM to an element tree is just:
> # In a DOM document,
> # the DOM is used as the <a>element tree</a>.
> # Each DOM element is an element in the <a>element tree</a>,
> # with the DOM element's namespace and local name as the type,
> # and its ID, class list, attributes, and child elements
> # as the ID, classes, attributes, and child elements in the <a>element tree</a>.
> # The rest of the information in the DOM is also accessible
> # as the arbitrary additional information in the <a>element tree</a>.
> That's as close to an identity transform as I can get.

This does not seem clear to me with respect to the above remark. You'd
have to interpret "arbitrary additional information" which is not a
defined term, in creative ways.

> I think it's probably good to mention that default values may or may
> not be matchable by Selectors.

If you define matching against a tree, as you do, there's no need to
mention this. DTDs may or may not influence the DOM, whether that
happens is immaterial to the Selectors Standard.

>> In syntax you are not calling it in API hook. If e.g. syntax uses this
>> algorithm (and I hope it can) it seems rather weird to name it an API
>> hook.
> True, I call them "Parser Entry Points" or "Parser Algorithms" in
> Syntax.  Are you just objecting to the naming of the section?

Not objecting, but yes.


Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 08:41:41 UTC