W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2016

Re: [css3-selectors]: Proposal: :in-view() selector for better visibility control

From: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 19:01:08 +0300
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Cc: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Alexander Shpack <shadowkin@gmail.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4737371481990468@web38m.yandex.ru>
07.12.2016, 15:12, "Marat Tanalin" <mtanalin@yandex.ru>:
> 07.12.2016, 07:14, "Brian Kardell" <bkardell@gmail.com>:
>>  On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote:
>>>  Is dynamic profile of selectors affected by loops?
>>
>>  Did you mean static?
>
> I mean using selectors in JS.

Fwiw, it turns out that using selectors in JS relates to the static profile, not the dynamic one (though that probably doesn’t matter much given that the corresponding thread branch has not evolved anyway for some reason; comments are still welcome though).

The current names of selector profiles are probably somewhat misleading and not quite intuitive given that _dynamic_ web pages use JS (so it’d be logical to expect the JS-related profile to be called dynamic instead of static) while pages without JS are typically called static (so it’d be logical to expect the corresponding selector profile to be called static instead of dynamic).

“Fast” and “complete” profile names used in the 20130502 version of the Selectors Level 4 spec [1] were probably more intuitive in this regard. Something like “partial” or “limited” instead of “fast” would probably be even easier to understand.

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-selectors4-20130502/#profiles
Received on Saturday, 17 December 2016 16:01:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:05 UTC