- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:11:30 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, David Håsäther <hasather@gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >> I'd like to be clear on what the proposal is for closest(). Is it: >> >> 1) Pass the element that closest() was called on as the :scope elements >> argument to all the calls up the parent chain. >> >> or >> >> 2) Pass the element that you're matchign against as the :scope elements >> argument. >> >> ? #2 is what you get if you desugar closest() in terms of matches(), but #1 >> seems to be closer to the use case Tab is thinking of, right? > > 1) makes the most sense to me and what I was planning on going with. > But yes, polyfilling would become harder. #1 is what I was intending, but looking at closest() now, I don't see a restriction to just compound selectors. If complex selectors are allowed, then I guess it makes more sense to match matches() and have :scope refer to the element you're matching against. It makes it harder to do some things, but they're probably rare and can be handled explicitly anyway. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 16:12:20 UTC