- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:22:37 -0700
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au> wrote: > On 2011-06-16 19:40, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> I was convinced that @scoped worked exactly like this until this >> thread. ?Apparently my previous reading of the spec was insufficiently >> deep to spot the scoping/filtering difference. >> >> FWIW, I also think that querySelector got this wrong. ?It should have >> scoped by default, and then possibly also offered an option to filter >> based on an element. > > I analysed this issue in depth when I wrote Selectors API, and even > revisited it when I tried to introduce the queryScopedSelector methods. ?But > it doesn't work without altering the syntax of selectors, like JQuery does, > such as allowing selectors to begin with combinators and creates other > unintended side affects. ?I don't have time to write up a full explanation > now, but most of the rationale is somewhere in the public-webapps archives. The side-effect you mention (having to allow selectors to start with combinators) is not a problem in Dimitry's proposal, where :scope is defined and added to :scope-less selectors at parse-time. I don't recall what the other issues were, but I'd appreciate a more permanent explanation of the issues you ran into than a mailing list archive. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 15:22:37 UTC