- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:40:20 -0500
- To: Benjamin Poulain <benjamin@webkit.org>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>, Clive Chan <doobahead@gmail.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:54:07 -0800Benjamin Poulain <benjamin@webkit.org> wrote: > On 2/11/15 2:43 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:24:03 +1100 > > To some extent it's better to give people enough rope to tie themselves up and have fun^H^H^Hproblems, better to have completeness, than to have something incomplete where people spend ages publishing weird workarounds that end up even more tangled. [...] > The problem is doing efficient style invalidation. You don't want a > single selector to invalidate giant subtrees every time any of its > element changes. It'll still be more efficient to have the browser do it than to do it in jQuery I expect, and opens up more Web functionality to more people. But it's a difference of philosophy, whether you go for completeness or for a subset of functionality. I'm not sure how previous-sibling opens up the worst-case scenario you hint at, nor how common that would be. "parent" is another matter. Best, Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ The barefoot typographer
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2015 01:40:28 UTC