Re: Behavior of matches() and closest() with :scope()

On 9/1/14, 1:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> What about closest(), should it have that argument
>> too?
>
> Yes, go ahead and do so.  While it's not usually going to be useful
> (as the argument to closest() is a compound selector matched against
> the element's ancestors), it could be used in a :has() pseudo.

I'd like to be clear on what the proposal is for closest().  Is it:

1)  Pass the element that closest() was called on as the :scope elements 
argument to all the calls up the parent chain.

or

2)  Pass the element that you're matchign against as the :scope elements 
argument.

?  #2 is what you get if you desugar closest() in terms of matches(), 
but #1 seems to be closer to the use case Tab is thinking of, right?

-Boris

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 16:01:08 UTC