- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:20:36 -0700
- 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 UTC