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

On 9/2/14, 12:20 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> #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.
>
> Hmm yes, so 2) then? :-)

I think I personally would prefer 1); it's not clear to me why complex 
selectors make a difference here.

-Boris

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 16:24:45 UTC