[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> CSS-in-XML sounds like a good idea. Let's see, it's a bag of
> properties attached to a CSS Selector.
The work I'm doing in MOE is about creating documents that represent the
properties applied by selectors to particular elements, not selector
preservation.
> (<rant>What happened to the
> Last Call comments to rename the "Selectors" document[1] to "CSS3
> Selectors". More paperwork to dig through...Sigh.</rant>)
Probably a good idea, though maybe we should rename XPath to XSLT
Selectors...
> The bag of properties thing would be easy to deal with, but the set of
> selectors is starting to look awfully ugly.
> "nth-last-child()"...Eeek!?
That was my initial response to XPath.
<plug>It's only recently that I've gotten over that aversion, mostly
thanks to editing John Simpson's new XPath & XPointer book. (Apologies
for the plug, but it's one of the few books I've edited which has made
me fonder of the technologies it covered instead of merely
frustrated.)</plug>
> Simplicity is loosing everywhere, ain't it?
It already lost in XPath - what's the surprise for CSS? I'll be happy
so long as CSS3 stays simpler than XPath 2.0. Or maybe that's just my
cynicism speaking!
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
