- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:31:40 -0400
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style@w3.org, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On 03/23/2015 09:17 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors-4/#evaluating-selectors introduces > an algorithm that defines how selectors are matched. It does so by > doing the matching from left to right (across combinators), which is > the opposite of what all implementations that I'm aware of do. > > Specifying it this way seems like a very bad idea, because it > introduces a number of risks: > > (1) specification authors might introduce features that are easy to > describe in the spec's left-to-right matching but hard to implement > in the implementations' right-to-left matching > > (2) we might want to introduce features that are simple in the > implementations' right-to-left matching, but that are hard to > describe it the spec's right-to-left matching > > (3) we might introduce features where it's easy to make subtle > errors in the mapping between the two descriptions; this can lead > to things that are technically bugs in implementations, and might > even do so interoperably. It's better for these not to be bugs, > and just to match the spec. > > So I think that if the spec introduces an algorithmic description of > selector matching (as the current draft of selectors-4 does), that > algorithm should work the same way implementations work. I don't understand why we are specifying an algorithm here at all. There is nothing to be gained from the spec providing an algorithm as opposed to a description of the required output. Tab, why is this section in the spec? What is it providing that's not otherwise provided? ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2015 17:32:14 UTC