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

Re: [selectors-nonelement] First draft of a new spec for selecting non-element nodes

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:02:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCdn1e2MUirUZdwy_fN3Hynvaw1g69-UZubEgCtU3oqWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Daniel Glazman
<daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> On 13/02/14 19:16, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> That sentence makes no mention of it being invalid in CSS, and I'm
>> strongly against Selector syntax being officially valid only in some
>> contexts.  Browser implementations might not ever *implement* this
>> selector, but if they do, it should be recognized in CSS as well.  (It
>> just doesn't do anything.)
> "doesn't do" is too underspecified for me.

That was just a casual description in the email.  The spec defines it
sufficiently - ::attr() never generates boxes.

> We need to know if this is
> going to create a empty rule in the OM, a non-empty rule in the OM
> with specified values available, or nothing at all. I suspect there
> will be some resistance from browser vendors to create an OM instance
> if it's never used by the layout. I'd love to be proven wrong but
> honestly, I would completely understand the footprint argument. After
> all, we still don't store unknownrules or comments in the OM, and that
> explanation is a part - only a part but still - of the reason why we\
> don't.

I don't understand why you'd infer any of this weird behavior.  If you
wrote this in your stylesheet:

#foo::attr(title) { color: red; }

It would be a valid rule that just had no effect on your document,
exactly the same as:

#foo::before { color: red; } (Note the lack of 'content', so no box generated.)

This behavior falls out of the definitions in the spec.  We don't need
any further information, as far as I can tell.

Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 19:03:46 UTC

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