- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:17:43 -0800
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Cc: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: > This email is about three separate, but related issues. > > The current ED defines: > >> ::attr() = ::attr( <qualified-name> ) >> >> Where <qualified-name> is a CSS qualified name. > > > With "CSS qualified name" a link to the css-namespaces spec. > > css-namespaces defines <qname> and <wqname> grammar terms. Only the latter > allows a wildcard for the namespace prefix: `*|localname`. > selectors-nonelement should clarify which one is intended. > > The best way to do this IMO is to not define a new <qualified-name> grammar > term, but use one of <qname> or <wqname> directly, specifying that it is > defined in css-namespaces. Ugh, it doesn't actually define either of these. It does the old token-grammar directly, instead. And it doesn't allow '*' for the subject which means that the *only place in CSS that uses Namespaces* (Selectors) can't even use it directly, since it allows '*' for the subject to represent any element in that namespace. Due to all of this, the way Namespaces defines its grammar is actually completely worthless, unfortunately. I've lightly rewritten stuff in selectors-nonelement to work a little better. For now, I'm explicitly defining the grammar. What we really need is to issue a modified Rec of Namespaces that defines some grammer terms properly, and has variants for whether or not you allow wildcards in the prefix *and* the subject. I made sure to retain all the clarifications that Jirka put into the draft to address your comments. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 22:18:30 UTC