- From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:05:39 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, David Håsäther <hasather@gmail.com>
On 9/1/14, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > In https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=886308#c29 bz points > out that I introduced a regression relative to the old definition of > matches() with the new hook in Selectors. > Who decided to take the name matchesSelector and rename it to matches? > I guess the way to fix this for matches() would be to add a :scope > elements argument. What about closest(), should it have that argument > too? > Closest what -- ancestor? parent? sibling? I've never been a fan of jQuery, but the method names there are actually quite a bit less bad. -- Garrett @xkit ChordCycles.com garretts.github.io
Received on Friday, 12 September 2014 22:06:14 UTC