Re: Supporting Scoped Selectors in Selectors API 2

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:16:25 +0200, Lachlan Hunt
> <> wrote:
>> "div div" becomes ":reference div div"
>> "+p" becomes ":reference+p"
>> ":reference>p" is unchanged.
>> This allows authors to be explicit if they don't like the shorthand
>> syntax, while still allowing the shorthand for those that do.
> This still requires changes to how Selectors are processed so that does
> not satisfy me.

Oh well. Unless you have an alternative proposal that also really 
addresses the issues, I guess I can't satisfy everyone.

>  E.g. :reference could have been written as:refer\0045nce.

As I defined it, that would have no effect on the end result as the 
processing is not done with naive string matching algorithms.

> Also introducing new methods while there are easy and
> simple workarounds sounds like adding bloat for no good reason. I do not
> think we should increase the feature set of the Web platform unless it
> gives a real benefit.

It's not for no good reason, and they are not easy and simple 
workarounds.   As I've demonstrated over and over again, there are real 
use cases and problems being addressed.  Feigning ignorance of them is 
not an argument against them.

> It helps keeping the Web platform simple by not introducing special
> parsing of Selectors if they are used in an API.

No, it makes the web platform easier to use by meeting authors needs and 

Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software

Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 14:00:08 UTC