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

Re: [selectors4] Spec for attribute value case-sensitivity is clearly to vague

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 08:07:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCdSXk2y8QSDy_Jw5N+x4npNjhsCzy+ALd=MBM1dtvsRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Fredrik Söderquist <fs@opera.com>
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 5:16 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 07:37:07 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>> On 1/22/16 1:06 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> The spec is quite clear on the matter:
>>> <https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors-4/#case-sensitive> states plainly
>>> that all of Selector syntax is case-insensitive except for the few
>>> exceptions called out in that section.
>>>
>>> This is just a silly bug on Blink's part.
>>
>>
>> OK.  Note that
>>
>> 1)  The tests in
>> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/selectors/attribute-selectors/attribute-case
>> agree with Blink here, and weren't even contributed by a Blink developer.
>>
>> 2)  I'm aware of the general case-insensitivity of CSS, and it still
>> wasn't clear to me what the spec was trying to say, especially given the
>> existing implementations and the tests.
>>
>> So I still maintain that an example using 'I' would be a good idea, just
>> to get everyone on the same page.
>
>
> Agreed that it's not clear. I wrote the test, and I *think* I brought up
> this issue at the time, and we concluded that the "i" itself should be
> case-sensitive. But I can't find that discussion; maybe it was on IRC.
>
> In any case, I don't particularly care which it should be, but the spec
> should be clearer. If we now conclude that Blink is wrong, I'm happy to fix
> the test and file a bug on Blink.

Yeah, I'm happy to add a note reminding about the case-insensitivity
part here - we do that in a few other spots despite it being
technically superfluous.

I maintain that this might be *easy to miss* (which I'm happy to fix),
but it is perfectly *clear* - there is zero ambiguity in the spec in
this regard if you're aware of all the text.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 22 January 2016 16:08:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:59 UTC