W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > March 2008

Re: [selectors-api] Why have two identical differently named interfaces?

From: liorean <liorean@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:04:52 +0100
Message-ID: <cee13aa30803130604l432fe11eya7790702a8484cc9@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>

>  > On 12/03/2008, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>  >> I guess I could do the two interfaces, but I'm having a hard time
>  >> seeing
>  >> different extensions being made to these two interfaces (as
>  > opposed to wholly
>  >> new interfaces being invented, as was done here).

>  On Mar 12, 2008, at 8:46 AM, liorean wrote:
>  > I can actually imagine one extension that only makes sence on elements
>  > and not on any other nodes - element-rooted instead of
>  > subtree-only-but-document-rooted queries. (I don't see any real
>  > benefit from such an interface though, but I've seen the idea
>  > mentioned on the mailing lists.)

On 13/03/2008, Alex Russell <alex@dojotoolkit.org> wrote:
> The benefit here is the (potential) ability to root queries to
>  containing nodes. Nearly every JavaScript library that does CSS
>  selectors handles the equivalent of:
>         node.querySelectorAll("> .thinger");
>  Which currently has no expression via valid CSS 3 selectors. There's
>  no concept of a query being a descendant of a selector root node
>  although the above use-case occurs very frequently in real-world
>  scripts.

Yes, but that use case has a trivial solution in document-rooted
context: determine the ID or if not present generate an ID for the
current node, query for a document-rooted "#ID > .thinger" and then if
you had to generate an ID, remove it.

In the context of HTML5 scoped style elements I did have an idea that
could be subverted for this case as well. The idae was basically a
::scope-root pseudo-element that encompassed the downwards sibling
tree of the scoped style element. This pseudo-element could be equally
useful in the Selectors API.

(I think I first mentioned it in
The threading is sadly slightly broken in the archives though (usualy
suspect is Outlook), so it's hard to follow the entire discussion.)

>  It seems foolish to extend the CSS 3 selectors WD to support a syntax
>  that is simple-selector free, whereas it has use in the DOM-centric
>  APIs.

Or in scoped style elements in HTML5... I still think explicit is
better than implicit though, with the added benefit that it will not
require changes to the basic algorithms of current selectors
David "liorean" Andersson
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 13:05:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:25 UTC