W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

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

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:18:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CADC=+jeZg9OQzvY=1FdVfDgmfccSC8Egf_2HM3f1fAFVyHDB3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org, "Tab Atkins, Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Feb 12, 2014 11:54 AM, "Daniel Glazman" <
daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> On 12/02/2014 17:49, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> We know exactly how many people voted before the change (130) and will
>> keep that in mind when evaluating the results.
>> (The results are sorted by time, so we know *which* votes were cast
>> before the change as well.)
> I am saying asking between ! and :has() on one hand and ^ and :has() on
> the other is *NOT* the same question because of the negative (pun
> intended) aspect of !. I disagree you can infer any sort of result from
> the poll since 130 answers will be biaised.
> </Daniel>

I am not going to argue for or against any kind of statistical analysis
here, but simply to point out that the real heat of the topic as discussed
in the minutes[1] can be boiled down to WG member's differing read of what
authors would find intuitive or confusing.  Some held that CSS authors
"have no problem with ! and negation" others held exactly the opposite and
both gave anecdotal evidence, which of course also lacks context of how it
was presented.  We asked a question, we see how it was presented and of a
sample of 130 responses we see an overwhelming number of comments to one

Regardless of statistical trueness or bias of the samplr, i think it is
fair to say that we have clear evidence that -some- (seemingly non-trivial)
number of authors are indeed confused by !/not.  My appeal here is simply
that priority of constituencies should lean us away from things which will
confuse at least a portion of authors unless a very solid rationale is
provided for why that is fundamentally necessary.


This said, I'm not opposed to any means of getting better information about
authors, in fact I think it's necessary to do more of this (maybe we can
establish an acceptable means first) to further improve the feedback loop
between constituents and the WG.
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 14:19:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:19 UTC