- From: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:14:17 +1100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-webapps@w3.org
On 25/11/11 12:21 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 11/24/11 7:07 PM, Sean Hogan wrote: >> If and when there is a need for a matching method that does imply :scope >> (which I provided a use-case for in >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0342.html) > > That's a use case passing in an explicit reference node. If you're > doing that, then it seems like using an explicit :scope in the > selector would be just fine. But I'll accept that in some sort of > edge cases you can't do that. > >> then it could be called matches(). > > That seems backwards: "does this node match this selector?" is the > common use case, so should have the shorter name, no? > That would make matches() behavior correspond with querySelectorAll(), and matchesSelector() correspond with findAll(). I consider that unreasonably confusing. Sean
Received on Friday, 25 November 2011 06:15:02 UTC