On Wed, 17 May 2006 06:29:54 +0200, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Several people have raised issues with naming the methods match and
matchAll as those might suggest a boolean return value. Alternate
suggestions
have been select and selectAll.
For ECMAScript, I think "match" is a fine choice of verb and is
consistent. For the closest comparison, regex 'match' isn't boolean.
Sure, I like match() as well. Mostly because it's short and simple, but
there were some concerns raised.
I think there's some confusion here about what is requested and what
you think is requested. What I personally mean when I want to have a
way to ask for all nodes in a NodeList that matches a selector or all
nodes in an element's subtree that matches a selector doesn't effect
the scope of the selectors. For example:
<doc>
/.../
<elm1>
<elm2 xml:id="bleh">
<elm3/>
<elm3/>
<elm2>
</elm1>
/.../
</doc>
var
selectorMatches=document.getElementById('bleh').matchAll(':root
elm3',resolver);
This selectorMatches variable would be StaticNodeList of both nodes in
the subtree below #bleh that match the selector. It would not at all
affect the scoping of the selector (':root' still matches the 'doc'
element, for example). It would only affect a single thing: it would
ask for matches in a subtree of the document instead of all matches in
the entire document tree.
That would be a different request yes. This issue was not really coming
from you though... I guess I could add it, but it probably won't make the
first public Working Draft.
At least one issue more that I think should be added:
Currently you can ask "gimme all matches in the document against this
selector" but you can't ask "I've got this element handle (from
event.target or whereever). Does this very element match this
selector?". Even if you did add 'match' and 'matchAll' on the Element
interface, those don't make it any easier to get an answer to that
question. So, some type of equivalent to regex.test(string) would be
immensely useful.
We already discussed that and imho it's out of scope for this version.
(It can also be noted that this is the only functionality really
needed. Traversal is already in the DOM1, so that is not the problem.
What is missing is the functionality of asking for if an element
matches a selector.)
Well yeah, and XPath is in DOM Level 3... This is more about providing a
simple way of selecting a bunch of modes based on a group of selectors.
This functionality is already provided in libraries and people would find
this really useful. (As would I!)
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
