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

Re: Remaining Problems with Explicit :scope Switching in find/findAll (was: Re: [Selectors API 2] Is matchesSelector stable enough to unprefix in implementations?)

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 12:29:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei-f2sK6491uMveRezEZYgJWYiWbNLgzv0EAcQVZP_K8FA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thursday, November 24, 2011, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
> On 2011-11-24 00:52, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Sean Hogan<shogun70@westnet.com.au>
>>> The alternative option (find / findAll / matches can accept explicit
>>> :scope, but will otherwise imply :scope) seems to be where all the
>>> ambiguity lies.
>> What exact cases are ambiguous with "find/findAll/matches can accept
>> explicit :scope, but will otherwise imply :scope"?
> The problems to be solved with automatically switching between implied
and explicit :scope are basically in determining what exactly counts as an
explicit :scope.  The answers to each of these has is trade off between
complexity and functionality, with the simplest option being always
implying :scope.
> * Is explicit :scope allowed at the beginning of each selector?
>  find(":scope>div");
>  find("body.foo :scope>div");
> * Does :scope inside functional pseudo-classes count?
>  find(":not(:scope)");
>  find(":matches(:scope)");
> If yes, does the first match the whole document, only descendants, or
descendants plus siblings?
> * If using an explicit :scope, can it match itself?
>  find(":scope") // Return null or the element itself?
> * Is :scope always implied if it begins with an explicit combinator other
than descendant, even if :scope is used elsewhere?
>  find(">div :scope");
>  find("+div :scope");
>  find("~div :scope");

Here is what I sent to the list on Nov 10th. Though it didn't get archived
so maybe it didn't go through properly:

1. Start with an empty list
2. Skip any whitespace at the beginning of the string.
3. If the next character is a ">", a "+" or a "~", insert a "simple
selector"[1] containing just the ":scope" pseudo selector at the
beginning of the selector.
4. Parse as a "selector"[1]. If there's a parse error throw an
SyntaxError exception.
5. If during parsing a ":scope" pseudo class was parsed, and if a
":scope" pseudo selector was added in step 2, throw a SyntaxError
6. If during parsing no ":scope" pseudo class was parsed, and if no
":scope" pseudo selector was added in step 2, add a simple selector
containing just the ":scope" pseudo class to the beginning of the
list, and use a descendant selector as combinator to the rest of the
7. Add selector to the end of list created in step 1.
8. If, after skipping any whitespace, the next character is a comma,
skip the comma and go to step 2.

The resulting selector list is evaluated against the document node,
but with :scope matching the node that .find/.findAll was called on.
.findAll returns all nodes which match the selector in document order.
.find returns the first node in the list of nodes that .findAll
returns, or null if the list is empty.

The reason I suggested to throw in step 5 was that such a selector would
never match anything and so must be a bug. But maybe that isn't the case
for /for/. More below.

> * There's also the general issue, not related to :scope, about how the
reference combinator affects the range of potential matches.
>  label.find("/for/ input")
> Based on the above issues, what happens in this case?
>  foo.find(">label /for/ input+:scope~span)

Can this expression ever match anything if we prepend ":scope"? Would
simply removing step 5 above make the steps work for this case too?

/ Jonas
Received on Sunday, 27 November 2011 20:30:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:37 UTC