Re: Behavior of matches() and closest() with :scope()

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> #1 is what I was intending, but looking at closest() now, I don't see
> a restriction to just compound selectors.  If complex selectors are
> allowed, then I guess it makes more sense to match matches() and have
> :scope refer to the element you're matching against.  It makes it
> harder to do some things, but they're probably rare and can be handled
> explicitly anyway.

Hmm yes, so 2) then? :-)


-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 16:20:29 UTC