Re: Selector Syntax Survey - subject indicator vs :has()

On 12 February 2014 19:34, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > (I'm reading through the additional comments now.  I'll let y'all know
> > if I find anything interesting.)
>
> You can read through the comments yourself if you'd like:
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmRB4Bq4bNRBdHdCcDJJZWxEaEhLU20yOGo1ZVBvT2c&usp=sharing
>
> I didn't find anything too surprising in here.  Lots of people made
> the same arguments that we'd brought up before, so I'm happy that we
> apparently hit all the major points in our own arguments.
>
> Lots of people liked !^ because it was shorter, and several people
> noted that it allowed selecting multiple subjects, one of the main
> distinctions that it has over :has().  (You have to write multiple
> selectors to get the same behavior with :has().)
>
> An *extremely* common argument people made for :has() is that it's
> easier to read and understand than an ASCII glyph is.  It's good to
> note that the community feels this way - this means we're on the right
> track with named combinators, too.
>
> Lots of people liked the jQuery precedent of :has(), too.
>

Funny how many people refer to ! being a negator in other languages. Even
if I daily program in languages using ! as negator, I'd not automatically
conclude that the exclamation mark would have the same meaning inside a CSS
selector. Also I'd like to know how the results would have been if jQuery
didn't have :has().
Anyway, the results seem to be pretty clear on this.

Sebastian