W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Publishing Selectors API Level 2 as an FPWD?

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:29:42 +0100
Message-ID: <4B4A46C6.9090504@lachy.id.au>
To: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Sean Hogan wrote:
> On 8/01/10 1:19 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> can we publish Selectors API Level 2 as an FPWD?
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api2/
> FYI, it seems the whole Status of this Document hasn't been updated for
> Selectors-API2.

Yeah, that will get fixed up when I get the spec ready for publication 
and do all the PubRules checks, etc.

> Also, the links to the W3C CVS are for Selectors-API, not Selectors-API2.


> I can't see the value of queryScopedSelector*() methods. The original
> rationale was that JS libs could potentially drop their selector
> engines, but this isn't facilitated by the proposed methods. Given that
> JS libs will still have to parse the selectors it is a trivial step to call
> querySelector*(rewrittenSelector, refNode)
> rather than
> queryScopedSelector*(rewrittenSelector)

Personally, I agree and was initially hesitant about adding it, but 
there were some reasonable arguments put forth suggesting that lifting 
the burden of pre-processing the selector to prepend :scope from JS libs 
would be useful [1].  Evidence to the contrary would be helpful.  John 
Resig also once told me he had an alternative proposal, but he hasn't 
yet shared it with me.

> The queryScopedSelector*() methods have misleading names - they don't
> match the definition of scope.
> It would be ridiculous to stick with those names if there are no
> implementations already out there.

Do you have a better alternative suggestion?

> Similarly, the :scope pseudo-class has a misleading name.

I've tried various alternative names, like :context, :reference, etc., 
but so far scope seems to be the least objectionable.  But all things 
considered, I don't think :scope is a particularly bad name, since it's 
name somewhat describes it's purpose and relates it to its utility in 
scoped stylesheets.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5860

Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
Received on Sunday, 10 January 2010 21:30:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:22 UTC