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

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> 1) makes the most sense to me and what I was planning on going with.
> But yes, polyfilling would become harder.

#1 is what I was intending, but looking at closest() now, I don't see
a restriction to just compound selectors.  If complex selectors are
allowed, then I guess it makes more sense to match matches() and have
:scope refer to the element you're matching against.  It makes it
harder to do some things, but they're probably rare and can be handled
explicitly anyway.

~TJ

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 16:12:20 UTC