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

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

From: David Håsäther <hasather@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 07:12:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMPaTMdTkie9aDKBHw9o6foxb-vzXfTATMxe_QqTsv8KFQdi7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, 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>
On Saturday, September 13, 2014, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
> > 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?

Closest inclusive ancestor:

> I've never been a fan of jQuery, but the method names there are actually
> quite a bit less bad.

jQuery's closest() was the inspiration for the name.

Anne, passing the element that closest() was called on makes the most sense
to me too.

David Håsäther
Received on Saturday, 13 September 2014 05:12:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:23 UTC