W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2014

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

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:05:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CABZUbM3q5+i_1YxkMtZ6eb7M4Db+Q8bZ9rWKvyrCLYiHFuq4HQ@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:05 UTC