W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: QSA, the problem with ":scope", and naming

From: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:33:20 +1100
Message-ID: <4EA72B20.5020408@westnet.com.au>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, John Resig <jeresig@gmail.com>, Paul Irish <paulirish@google.com>
On 26/10/11 7:51 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Sean Hogan<shogun70@westnet.com.au>  wrote:
>> I think allowing explicit :scope in findAll() will be perpetually confusing.
>> I can imagine someone looking at old code like:
>>      e.findAll("div.foo span, div.bar :scope span")
>> and asking themselves "what's the rule again? If there's :scope in the
>> selector then there's no :scope implied? Or was that just on each single
>> selector? Or is :scope always implied at the start of the whole selector
>> list and that's why it's explicit in the second part? Dammit, why didn't we
>> just use querySelectorAll() if we wanted explicit :scope?"
> Using :scope explicitly at the beginning of selectors is necessary if
> we want a sane way to have selector lists chain off of the scoping
> element.  I'm okay with the string starting with a combinator when
> it's a single selector like "+ foo", but not when it's a selector list
> like "+ foo, + bar".
> ~TJ

I didn't follow that. Why does findAll() need to support explicit :scope?

It is simpler if querySelectorAll() supports explicit :scope and 
findAll() doesn't.
Plus it means findAll() matches how js libs currently work.

Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 21:33:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:36 UTC