- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:16:01 +0100 (CET)
- To: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
- cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Yehuda Katz wrote: > > Yehuda Katz > (ph) 718.877.1325 > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > * Yehuda Katz wrote: > >Most people would accomplish that using jQuery. Something like: > > > >var previous = $(current).closest("tr").prev() > > > >I'm not exactly sure what `current` is in this case. What edge-cases are > >you worried about when you say that the JavaScript is "quite involved"? > > It is unlikely that your code is equivalent to the code I provided, and > sure enough, you can point out in all discussions about convenience APIs > that people could use a library. I don't see how that is relevant here. > > > It's relevant because Tab's argument is that a mix of selectors and JS APIs will work, and I'm demonstrating that by showing that that's what *people actually do* today. Of course that can be taken in one of two ways; it either shows that it's fine to have a limited selection DSL because people can fall back on using a full programming language, or shows that today's selction DSLs have failed because people are being forced to fall back on a full programming language and the whole of jQuery to satisfy their needs.
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 21:16:43 UTC