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

Re: Supporting Scoped Selectors in Selectors API 2

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:22:29 -0700
Message-ID: <4AC393D5.6040201@inkedblade.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 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.

I don't feel too strongly about it, given that it's a JS string and
not a fragmented piece of syntax inside something larger. I can
still think of the JS function as doing some string-preprocessing
before calling it a Selector.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 17:23:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:21 GMT