Jonas Sicking wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:31:50 +0100, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I do sort of think that it's a pity to disallow a selectors
implementation in a browser from implementing additional selectors on
top of the ones in the CSS implementatio
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:31:50 +0100, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do sort of think that it's a pity to disallow a selectors
implementation in a browser from implementing additional selectors on
top of the ones in the CSS implementation, for example for th
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:31:50 +0100, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do sort of think that it's a pity to disallow a selectors
implementation in a browser from implementing additional selectors on
top of the ones in the CSS implementation, for example for the reasons
Boris mention
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Jonas Sicking wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:36:21 +0100, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I have added the following text to the spec:
"If the user agent also supports some level of CSS, the
implementation
must
Jonas Sicking wrote:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:36:21 +0100, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I have added the following text to the spec:
"If the user agent also supports some level of CSS, the
implementation
must support the same set
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:36:21 +0100, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I have added the following text to the spec:
"If the user agent also supports some level of CSS, the
implementation
must support the same set of selectors that ar
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:36:21 +0100, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I have added the following text to the spec:
"If the user agent also supports some level of CSS, the
implementation
must support the same set of selectors that are supported by the CSS
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
The Selectors specification defines the conformance criteria for a
group of selectors, and thus an invalid selector is one that does not
conform to those requirements. I have updated the text to more
clearly refer to the conforma
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
The Selectors specification defines the conformance criteria for a
group of selectors, and thus an invalid selector is one that does not
conform to those requirements. I have updated the text to more
clearly refer to the conformance requirements in Se
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
* It's not clear what it means for a group of selectors to be
"invalid". Does the term mean that the group of selectors is not
tokenizable according to the CSS grammar? Or that there are
unrecognized simple selectors or combinators in the group? Or both?
How should ven
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
* It's not clear what the DOM3Core reference at the end of the first
paragraph is there for. Is that a reference for the Document and
Element interfaces? This could use clarification.
Yes, that was the intention. I have attempted to clarify it.
* It's not clear which I
* It's not clear what the DOM3Core reference at the end of the first
paragraph is there for. Is that a reference for the Document and
Element interfaces? This could use clarification.
* It's not clear which IDL, if any, is being used when defining the
DocumentSelector and ElementSelector i
12 matches
Mail list logo
