- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 22:02:45 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Peter Moulder <pjrm@mail.internode.on.net>, "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 5, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hmm, let's see: > > article ^shadow heading ^descendants p > > Than in: > > article /shadow heading /descendants p > > Damn, that's pretty good, actually. I thought I would like it less > due to it being less visible, but it's really not bad. Yeah, I like the look of it too. Less fan of the backtick. While it is used out there - some flavors of Markdown also use it to mark up inline code - it’s still esoteric and visually ambiguous enough I’m honestly concerned we’ll see Stack Overflow questions from people wondering why a regular quote doesn’t work until the end of times. > >> And even if we reject slash, we should consider using the same names as in >> xpath wherever possible (e.g. ^following-sibling or whatever), so long as >> the xpath combinator doesn't have some difference in semantics sufficient to >> cause "false friend" problems. > > Yeah, I've got no problem with that, assuming we introduce variants of > the existing combinators. > > ~TJ >
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 22:03:27 UTC