- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:06:02 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: >> Any updates on this? >> >> I think I am not understanding something. It seems if you make a >> relative selector absolute, you no longer need scope-contained vs >> filtered, as once it is absolute you can no longer match anything >> outside that subtree. What am I missing? > > In particular, it seems everything I need is scope-filtered. Do I need > to say that explicitly? Yes, you need to say it explicitly, though I doubt everything you need is actually scope-filtered. > I also noticed a problem, with the current descriptions I cannot > handle matches(). E.g. document.body.matches("body") yields true, as > would document.body.matches(":scope"), however, with either > scope-filtered or scope-contained the body element would not be in the > result of the match operation. Suggestions? Don't scope them. You just need to supply the target element as the sole element in the "reference element set". That lets :scope work (assuming that's what you want), but it doesn't actually cause any scoping to happen unless you say so. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2014 19:06:49 UTC