- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:30:21 -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 Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>> ...
>
> So let's see. If we don't pass a :scope elements argument we get
>
> E.matches(":scope") -> false
> E.closest(":scope") -> null
> E.closest(":has(> :scope)" -> null
>
> If we pass E as :scope elements we get
>
> E.matches(":scope") -> true
> E.closest(":scope") -> E
> E.closest(":has(> :scope)" -> E's parent
>
> Now for closest() we could also pass the current ancestor A as :scope
> elements, then we get
>
> E.closest(":scope") -> E
> E.closest(":has(> :scope)" -> null
>
> It seems to me that passing the element on which the method is invoked
> as :scope elements (i.e. E) makes the most sense. That argues for 1).
I suppose I can't come up with any decent use-cases for closest() with
a :scope matching the current ancestor. Let's go with #1, since it
does have a decent use-case associated with it.
~TJ
Received on Friday, 12 September 2014 20:31:09 UTC