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

Re: [selectors-nonelement] ::attr(*|localname), ::attr(ns|*), and ::attr(*)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:13:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAdkfFg8_tmzZRvY3YtZ7r=YVOpYEuwkDxr_jCE95Oxog@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Cc: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:56:41 +0100, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote:
>> On 19.2.2014 1:43, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>>> If the prefix is omitted, the selector only matches attributes in no
>>>>> namespace.
>>>> … which applies to both ::attr(foo) and ::attr(*)
>>>> I like the consistency, but it means that "give me all the things" must
>>>> be
>>>> written ::attr(*|*) rather than just ::attr(*), which doesn’t seem to be
>>>> what Jirka wanted.
>>> That's consistent with what Selectors does for type selectors, though.
>>>  I'd be extremely loathe to break that consistency.
>> I'm not sure with what you are trying to be consistent, if with the
>> following from the Selectors:
>> "*
>> if no default namespace has been specified, this is equivalent to *|*.
>> Otherwise it is equivalent to ns|* where ns is the default namespace."
>> Then I have to point out that default namespace does not apply to
>> attributes, so it doesn't make sense to align * behaviour for attributes
>> with elements.
>> Or had you in mind something different?
> I'm not Tab but I think the reasoning is as follows:
> * and foo are equivalent for the namespace part, i.e. same as *|* and *|foo
> or ns|* and ns|foo
> hence
> ::attr(*) and ::attr(foo) should also be equivalent for the namespace part,
> i.e. same as ::attr(|*) and ::attr(|foo)

Nah, I got it wrong with Selectors.  In a type selector, "*" is
equivalent to "*|*" if there's no default namespace set; otherwise
it's equivalent to "ns|*".  I *thought* it was equivalent to "|*", but
I was wrong.

So yeah, Jirka's right, ::attr(*) should be equivalent to ::attr(*|*)
in the absence of a default namespace.

Received on Monday, 24 February 2014 21:14:23 UTC

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