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: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:30:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4B4B6E3D.4060809@lachy.id.au>
To: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Sean Hogan wrote:
> In summary, the proposed :scope pseudo-class only acts as a scope for
> the query in special cases, not in the general case.

Yes, I'm aware of that.  That was basically my reasoning for attempting 
to change it to :reference, but that name wasn't particularly well 
received either.  However, keep in mind, I'd prefer to avoid having this 
turn into another naming debate.  Selectors API has suffered enough in 
the past as a result of that.

So if you have anything more to add, I'd request that you check the 
archives for this list and www-style for messages relating to 
:scope/:reference/:context, etc. to see what arguments have been raised 
previously.

The most recent discussion of and objections to :reference are in this 
thread from www-style last September.  There were also other objections 
raised with me on IRC and told to me directly.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Sep/thread.html#msg251

In particular, this one lists most of the alternatives have been 
considered, and it also sums up why the selector pre-processing for 
scoped selectors got watered down to its current state.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Sep/0317.html

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 18:30:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:36 GMT