> I agree, why restrict Mootools by not using this functionnality?

Not  once did I say that using custom Pseudos is always a bad idea. If
you have no other way of selecting relevant elements, it may be a fine
choice.  It  is  an  obviously  bad  choice  when  there  are standard
selectors   to   use,  not  to  mention  incredibly  simple,  standard
selectors.

So  is  :selected  a  "standard"  selector?  Depends  on what frame of
reference  you  use. Within MT, unfortunately, it is probably going to
be kept around for backward compatibility. That doesn't mean it should
be  on your short list of programming tactics! It's only there because
it  was thought to be a CSS standard and now we are stuck with it. The
built-in  selectors  in Selectors.Pseudo were intended to be standards
outside  of  Moo-land:  the  reference  in the docs, however, is to an
outdated  CSS  3  draft.  Thus  ':selected'  is  not  standard  in any
interpretation  that  respects the W3C as a standards organization. As
Moo's  :selected is in a limbo now between fully fake/custom and fully
real/standard,  it serves no purpose to endorse its use, and I believe
it should be deprecated and eventually removed.

Then,  if  you  still, with a straight face, feel the need to create a
custom  pseudo selector that is a grand total of one character shorter
than  the  standard  attribute selector _and uses nomenclature that is
not one iota clearer_... feel free.

> Mootools will now support it ad vitam eternam, I don't see why we
> should make a privation here.

> If  it  was  discussed to put it in the CSS3 specification, it's not
> dumb.  It  may  eventually appear again for CSS 4, no?

It was taken out because (a) it is ambiguously named (see ::selection)
and  (b)  because  it is redundant with :checked (not to mention being
redundant with [selected]). There is no reason to believe that it will
return given its well-reasoned removal.

> Standards are made by people using them! ;)

I  would  not consider that an accurate description of the work of the
W3C.

-- Sandy

Reply via email to