Re: :scope definition ambiguity from Boris Zbarsky on 2011-04-08 (public-webapps@w3.org from April to June 2011)

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 09:33:36 -0700
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D9F38E0.2080606@mit.edu>

On 4/8/11 9:24 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> In the text at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-api2/#the-scope-pseudo-class the term
> "belongs to a document" is not defined. Does it mean "there is a
> Document on the parent chain", or does it mean "ownerDocument is not null"?

Then again, maybe it doesn't matter now that I think about it.

In which case, do we just want to define :scope as matching the 
documentElement of the ownerDocument of the element in question?

-Boris

Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 16:34:08 UTC