W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2009

Re: Supporting Scoped Selectors in Selectors API 2

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:48:03 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0909300648o6b07ed87sc90e1f6656b81cfa@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
> fantasai wrote:
>> I have a slight preference for
>> a) :scope instead of :reference
> This does seem to be the only name that people seem to be happy with,
> despite it being not entirely accurate for all use cases.  So far, all the
> names considered seem to have problems.  All the ones I can recall are:
> :scope, :this, :self, :context, :context-node, :reference, :ref, :important,
> :root, and the emoticon-inspired :D, :s and :p

I... didn't even think of using :this.  That has a very interesting
synergy with js's this variable.

My vote's for either :this or :scope then.

>> b) Requiring :scope when there's an explicit combinator so as not
>> to present incomplete selector fragments.
> I think that's suboptimal because it will require JS libraries to perform
> selector parsing themselves to insert the pseudo-class before passing it to
> the API.  But since adjusting selector parsing for this seems to be
> unacceptable :-(, I've reluctantly changed the spec to require the explicit
> pseudo-class when a combinator other than the descendant combinator is
> needed, so "+p" is no longer allowed. Scripts have to use ":reference+p"
> instead.  I will now have to deal with the inevitable complaints from
> authors and JS library develpers for making their lives harder.

Fantasai, was this really an issue in a new function?  I think
queryScopedSelector("+p") is just fine, and requiring the explicit
:scope is a lose considering the existing precedent in js selector
engines.  My issues were just dealing with the potential ambiguity
when both scoped and non-scoped were handled by the same function.

Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 13:48:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:29 UTC