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

Re: [selectors4] Features to Defer

From: Benjamin Poulain <benjamin@webkit.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:05:13 -0700
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Philippe Le H├ęgaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <55AEC219.1090505@webkit.org>
On 7/21/15 2:43 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:30 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>> Prompted by plh, Tab and I just went over the Selectors 4 spec,
>> to figure out what's ready to polish up and send to CR and what
>> looks like it should stay in WD. Here's a list of what we propose
>> to keep and defer:
>>
>> Keep:
>>    * Everything in Level 3, obviously
>>    * case-insensitive attribute selectors
>>    * :matches(), :not()
>>    * :dir(), :lang()
>>    * :any-link, :current, :past, :future
>>    * CSS UI selectors, possibly other than :read-only / :read-write (see
>> below)
>>    * :user-error
>>
>> Defer to L5 or Need More Info to Decide
>>
>>    ? :has()
>>        Propose to defer.
>>    ? :focus-within
>>        Will keep if there's impl interest
>>
>>    ? :drop and :drop()
>>        No idea, need info on impl status / interop
>>    ? :read-only and :read-write
>>        Vaguely recall someone wanting to drop this...
>>    ? :placeholder-shown
>>        Need to check impl status
>>
>>    ? :blank
>>        Need to check impl status, would prefer a new name
>>        (that doesn't evoke empty input fields)
>>    ? :nth-child( An+B of <selector> )
>>        Want to double-check satisfaction with syntax, impl interest
>>    ? >> descendant selector
>>        Bias towards dropping, want to check with implementers
>>
>>    ? Column combinator
>>        Want to double-check satisfaction with syntax, impl interest
>>    ? :nth-column() pseudo-class
>>        Biased to at-risk
>>
>> Please send your thoughts on this list. :)
>>
>> ~fantasai
>>
>
>
> Why postpone :has again?  it's already been booted from like 1999 to
> selectors 3, then 4, then "only for static profile" and now we want to
> move it to 5?  why?  in the static profile this isn't hard and jQuery
> has had it since, I think day one.

The thing is, the engine will not do better than jQuery. There is little 
value in adding something complicated when JavaScript can do just as good.

I would personally prefer if we investigated how to restrict :has() to 
run in a reasonable time, then enable it for styling.

Every time I discuss this subject with developers, they are not 
interested in :has() as it is today. They wanted similar capabilities 
for styling. In my humble opinion, that is what we should aim for.

Benjamin
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2015 22:06:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:18 UTC