On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:32:05 +0100, Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giova...@gmail.com> wrote:
I asked that question a little ago. I was answered, and agreed, that CSS selectors are easier to understand, are already known by authors because of their use in CSS and most important they're highly optimized in UAs.
Ok. I note that in your original e-mail you did not explain why authors would go back to XPath if we did not give namespace support in the next version of the API. Do you expect that namespace usage which requires using namespaced selectors will increase significantly in the upcoming years justifying the added complexity? And if you do expect that, why?
Although namespace support was dropped in part because of technical issues, not having compelling use cases is something I think we should overcome first. Because if there are no compelling use cases, making the API more complex is not worth it.
-- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
