- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:58:27 -0800
- To: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > * Is :scope always implied if it begins with an explicit combinator
>> > other
>> > than descendant, even if :scope is used elsewhere?
>> > find(">div :scope");
>> > find("+div :scope");
>> > find("~div :scope");
>>
>> Yes.
>
> I think I would be ok with this case throwing, because all of the cases are
> nonsense queries.
*Those* cases are nonsense. Use the reference combinator, though, and
it suddenly becomes possibly reasonable.
Alternately, assume that :matches() is eventually changed to allow
complex selectors. Using :scope there is completely fine.
Rather than trying to carve out some ways that are okay and other ways
that throw, I think it's better to just use the simplest possible
rule: prepend :scope to them and evaluate them as normal. The
selectors above just won't match anything, is all.
~TJ
Received on Friday, 25 November 2011 02:59:22 UTC