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

Re: [Selectors API 2] Is matchesSelector stable enough to unprefix in implementations?

From: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:56:43 +1100
Message-ID: <4ECB71DB.70009@westnet.com.au>
To: Roland Steiner <rolandsteiner@chromium.org>
CC: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org>
On 22/11/11 7:14 PM, Roland Steiner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 14:19, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com 
> <mailto:wycats@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     Yehuda Katz
>     (ph) 718.877.1325 <tel:718.877.1325>
>
>
>     On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu
>     <mailto:bzbarsky@mit.edu>> wrote:
>
>         On 11/21/11 11:31 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>                 1)  Make sense.
>                 2)  Not break existing content.
>                 3)  Be short.
>
>
>             .matches
>             .is
>
>
>     I like .is, the name jQuery uses for this purpose. Any reason not
>     to go with it?
>
>
> IMHO 'is' seems awfully broad in meaning and doesn't very well 
> indicate that the parameter should be a selector. Inasmuch I like 
> .matches better.
>
> Also, FWIW, an 'is' attribute on elements was/is in discussion on this 
> ML as one possibility to specify components.
>

Funnily enough, I've just been talking to the DOM5 and DOM6 API 
designers and they said almost exactly the same thing.
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 09:57:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:48 GMT