W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > September 2006

Re: comments on Selectors API WD

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 04:21:39 +0200
Message-ID: <451DD4B3.9080002@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Cc: public-webapi@w3.org

Robin Berjon wrote:

> I don't think we need to cram as many features as possible into v1. 
> Defining the exact semantics of scoped CSS selectors can be a little 
> tricky, and it clearly is the job of the CSS WG to do so. The WG thinks

Tricky. Ah. When it comes to defining how matchSingle() and matchAll()
work, I fail to see how, sorry. You don't have to worry about
specificity, cascade or precedence because Selectors API do not deal
with it!

A stylesheet applies to a subtree, that subtree being the whole
document. A scoped stylesheet applies to a deeper subtree, that's all.

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.

> 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

>> 4. I really hate having two different methods for matchSingle and
>>    matchAll, and I'd prefer a single method with a boolean indicating
>>    if only the first result should be retrieved or all.
> I think that's largely a matter of taste, isn't it?

No. That's a matter of consistency. Having similar methods both
performing a search, the result of the first one being a subset
of the second one, reply similar constructs is a matter of

Received on Saturday, 30 September 2006 02:21:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:22 UTC