- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:25 +1100
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Benjamin Poulain <benjamin@webkit.org>
Received on Friday, 13 February 2015 23:49:53 UTC
On Feb 12, 2015 10:25 PM, "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:05:45 +0400, Benjamin Poulain <benjamin@webkit.org> wrote: > >> On 2/12/15 1:22 AM, Simon Pieters wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:14:26 +0400, Benjamin Poulain < benjamin@webkit.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> The serialization specification does not mention ">>" from CSS Selectors level 4: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom/#serializing-selectors && http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors-4/#descendant-combinators >>>> >>>> What we have done in WebKit is serialize ">>" like the other non-space combinators (e.g. "foo>>bar" serialize to "foo >> bar"). >>>> >>>> An other option is to canonicalize every descendant combinator to the space character. >>> >>> >>> I've specified it to serialize as a space, for two reasons: >> >> I am a bit surprised by this. I had the impression the WG favored ">>" over the space. > > > Personally I see no reason to favor >>. The only reason I have seen for it existing at all is that it makes for a "nice" family of combinators >, >> and >>>. But it is possible that I'm missing something. It's also required for some corner-cases with relative selectors. >>> * It avoids having to remember which one was used when parsing > > This is the stronger reason in my opinion. Also see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Jan/0603.html Agreed. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 13 February 2015 23:49:53 UTC