- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:42:20 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, David Håsäther <hasather@gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > 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. For the same reason that :scope matches the element in .matches(). Anything you might want to pass to .matches(), you might want to pass to .closest(). #1 would allow you to write a .closest() selector which, paired with :has(), can explicitly reference the starting element, but you can reproduce that if necessary by adding a uniquifier to the starting element and matching on that. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 16:43:07 UTC