- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 03:04:12 +1000
- 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>, David Håsäther <hasather@gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:48 AM, 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. > > I guess the way to fix this for matches() would be to add a :scope > elements argument. You're just referring to the internal ":scope elements" arg for the matching algo, right? Not adding an argument to matches()? If so, then yes, just passing the element as the sole :scope element will work fine. > What about closest(), should it have that argument > too? Yes, go ahead and do so. While it's not usually going to be useful (as the argument to closest() is a compound selector matched against the element's ancestors), it could be used in a :has() pseudo. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 1 September 2014 17:04:59 UTC