W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: [selectors-api] Scoped Queries

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:20:36 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0909232020v3acd232p5d43a057fdfa7ffe@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, John Resig <jresig@mozilla.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@mozilla.com>
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> *Scoped Queries*
>>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5860
>>>
>>> This has been discussed extensively in the past.  Basically, the idea is
>>> that the selector would be evaluated in the scope of the element, in a
>>> way
>>> more compatible with how libraries like JQuery work.  This slightly
>>> different from the :scope pseudo-class proposal, see bug for details.
>>>
>>
>> Note that what makes the ">strong, >em" selector (which apparently
>> some libraries support) hard to support spec-wise is that that is not
>> in fact valid CSS syntax. It's certainly possible to define behavior
>> for it, it's pretty clear to me how it's intended to work, but it
>> would mean specifying our own syntax.
>>
>
> It is clear how it is intended to work, but it is less powerful than a
> :scope selector.
> I suggest it is a low priority feature.

But a :scope selector by itself doesn't help if the passed in selector
to the library contains a comma separated selector like "foo, bar".

>> However if supporting commaseparated queries is critical for libraries
>> then I see no other choise. We'll one way or another have to specify
>> our own syntax, though it can be heavily based on the productions in
>> the Selector spec.
>>
>> / Jonas
>
> Libraries already parse selector queries anyway. And some of them add
> non-standard selectors and presumeably will continue to do so. I don't think
> it is an issue.

The input I've gotten from library developers is that they would love
to not have to ship a selector engine. Apparently it would reduce the
size of for example jQuery with about 10k which is pretty significant.

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2009 03:21:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT