- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:29:04 +0100
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Martin Kadlec (BS-Harou)" <bs-harou@myopera.com>
On Nov 22, 2011, at 17:05 , Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:16 AM, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote: >> Right, one of the issues with XPath is that the DOM3 XPath API is without >> doubt the worst API on the web platform. With a sane API there might be more >> demand for XPath since it can be used for things that the CSSWG are unlikely >> to ever allow in selectors for performance reasons. As Simon points out, >> there is even a preexisting API that does more or less the right thing and >> is implemented in IE and Opera. > > I believe there's a decent chance that we'll sprout a "batch > processers" selectors spec or profile of the existing spec to handle > things that are too expensive for normal CSS but perfectly fine when > run in JS. Are you not concerned at the flood of puzzlement brought about by having the same language that supports different features at different places in the same runtime? I can already tell that I will get it wrong on a regular basis... >> d - "//div[parent::*//a]"; > > (d) can be done with the new subject indicator in the Selectors 4 > draft: a! > div (syntax pending, but that's the general idea) I think that the example you show selects the <a> parent of a <div>, not <div>s that have parents containing an <a>. >> There are definitely lots of cases when CSS selectors are much more powerful than XPath. Mainly when there are many of class names and ids involved. And that is why I think that XPath and CSS selectors are not rivals - they are exactly the opposite, they complement each other. > > They solve the same set of use-cases in the same way, with the only > difference being relatively minor abilities of each. That definitely > makes them rivals. ^_^ We don't need two selection mechanisms with > substantially different syntaxes. XPath may be useful as a source of > more ideas to pull into Selectors, but that's it. Right, because since we have something that works why not invent another! Makes perfect sense to me. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 17:29:28 UTC