W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2015

Re: [selectors] feedback

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:05:11 -0700
Message-ID: <55D2AEF7.2070406@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 04/22/2014 09:16 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Another reason I'm somewhat against switching to basing it on DOM is
>>> that the tree model used by Selectors is *wider* than DOM.  It
>>> contains pseudo-elements, for instance, which don't exist in DOM.  So
>>> even if I switched over, I'd still be working off a somewhat abstract
>>> tree with more information in it.
>>
>> No, pseudo-elements operate on the node you matched against. They are
>> a good reason for making things clearer. E.g. if you have html::before
>> you first match until you find html and then there is some kind of
>> check for its associated before structure, if any.
>
> [Private discussion with Anne in #whatwg resulted in the two of us
> agreeing that it should be okay to use the DOM, but augment it with
> pseudo-elements for the purpose of Selectors.]

I've just been reviewing the checkins for this, and I disagree with
normatively basing Selectors on the DOM. Especially since you've done
extra work in showing how it can map to other formats like JSON and
graphs.

Since undoing that dependency was just a few wording tweaks (almost
all the references to the DOM were already informative, I just fixed
up the two that weren't), I went ahead and did that.
   https://hg.csswg.org/drafts/rev/18893eb99b33

I also looked over the pseudo-class flags and pseudo-elements slots
text you wrote... and
   a) I don't see that it's adding anything useful, since we're very
      clear in the pseudo-class and pseudo-element sections that they
      can rely on information not in the document tree.
   b) I'm pretty sure adding a "first-child" flag is ridiculous since
      that's already encoded in the document tree.
   c) I think it confuses things more than it clarifies. For example,
      if my element has a "first-child" flag, does that mean it still
      matches ":first-child" after I move it?
So I think this part needs to be removed. (If there's some need that
you think this section fulfills, let's talk about what that is and
then write some prose that makes a bit more sense and doesn't confuse
anyone...)

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2015 04:05:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 August 2015 04:05:40 UTC