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: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 02:05:29 -0800
Message-ID: <4ECB73E9.80201@jumis.com>
To: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
CC: Roland Steiner <rolandsteiner@chromium.org>, 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 11/22/11 1:56 AM, Sean Hogan wrote:
> 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.

On the the theme, Be short, are there issues with .has?
if(node.has('[role="button"]')) node.is='button';
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 10:06:08 GMT

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