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

Re: Publishing Selectors API Level 2 as an FPWD?

From: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:57:13 +1100
Message-ID: <4B4B9EB9.8010105@westnet.com.au>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 12/01/10 5:30 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> 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
>
Yes, it sounds like I have nothing to add.

The new refNodes argument to querySelector*() will be useful, even if 
":scope" is the place-holder for refNodes.
The new queryScopedSelector*() methods add no value. I suspect that if / 
when they get removed there will be no objection to renaming :scope to 
something more appropriate.

I've been an active part of discussion on this list. If you don't want 
to have the same arguments on two different lists you should reference 
the other list and discussion a bit more promptly.
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 21:57:59 GMT

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