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

Re: comments on Selectors API WD

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:01:38 +0200
To: "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tgorg0uo64w2qv@id-c0020>

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 04:21:39 +0200, Daniel Glazman  
<daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> 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/>
Received on Saturday, 30 September 2006 10:01:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:55 GMT