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

Re: [selectors4] Features to Defer

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:29:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCpoF0JFu3xUSfoye0Ntvngohn4gin_rfsvg+XFeduhHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Philippe Le H├ęgaret <plh@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Because we still aren't seeing implementations snapping at it.  We're
prepping for CR; we don't want things in CR that nobody's planning on
implementing.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Benjamin Poulain <benjamin@webkit.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.

I hear the opposite - I've heard from a lot of devs that are happy
about :has() (even tho they're sad it's not usable in stylesheets).

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

Yes, more research in this vein would be great.  It doesn't mean we
shouldn't do the general, slow :has() in the static profile still,
tho.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2015 00:30:14 UTC

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