On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 04:21:39 +0200, Daniel Glazman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The one and only issue is the :root matching, and it makes perfect
sense here to say it matches the root of the subtree because there
is no other root element in this context ! The other option, ie match
the root of the document, is pure non-sense... In the scope, that
element is just not visible.
Well, there have been several suggestions as to how it could work (this
being a new one):
* An implied descendant combinator at the start;
* An implied child combinator at the start;
* You select nodes from the whole Document, but
only those part of the relevant subtree are
returned (here :root matching the root of the
Document does make sense);
* You require :root at the start? Or something
similar to that?
that it's simpler and safer to restrict ourselves to Document at first,
and extend to Element (or Node) later, rather than do the latter now
and find out later that it introduces issues with what the CSS WG
intends to do in the area.
I thought your WG was more disruptive than that :-)
More seriously, I really think this WD does not push far enough.
The cost is little. Your WG and the CSS WG could probably solve this
quickly.
I'm happy for the CSS WG to suggest something sensible.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
http://www.opera.com/
