-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
So just to clarify:
Your expectation is that the querySelectorAll API will be wrapped by
JavaScript libraries for the foreseeable future?
As a JS library author, it was my sincerest hope that I could get out
of this particular pool.
Regards
On Mar 13, 2008, at 6:04 AM, liorean wrote:
On 12/03/2008, Boris Zbarsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess I could do the two interfaces, but I'm having a hard time
seeing
different extensions being made to these two interfaces (as
opposed to wholly
new interfaces being invented, as was done here).
On Mar 12, 2008, at 8:46 AM, liorean wrote:
I can actually imagine one extension that only makes sence on
elements
and not on any other nodes - element-rooted instead of
subtree-only-but-document-rooted queries. (I don't see any real
benefit from such an interface though, but I've seen the idea
mentioned on the mailing lists.)
On 13/03/2008, Alex Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The benefit here is the (potential) ability to root queries to
containing nodes. Nearly every JavaScript library that does CSS
selectors handles the equivalent of:
node.querySelectorAll("> .thinger");
Which currently has no expression via valid CSS 3 selectors. There's
no concept of a query being a descendant of a selector root node
although the above use-case occurs very frequently in real-world
scripts.
Yes, but that use case has a trivial solution in document-rooted
context: determine the ID or if not present generate an ID for the
current node, query for a document-rooted "#ID > .thinger" and then if
you had to generate an ID, remove it.
In the context of HTML5 scoped style elements I did have an idea that
could be subverted for this case as well. The idae was basically a
::scope-root pseudo-element that encompassed the downwards sibling
tree of the scoped style element. This pseudo-element could be equally
useful in the Selectors API.
(I think I first mentioned it in
<uri:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/
0069.html>.
The threading is sadly slightly broken in the archives though (usualy
suspect is Outlook), so it's hard to follow the entire discussion.)
It seems foolish to extend the CSS 3 selectors WD to support a syntax
that is simple-selector free, whereas it has use in the DOM-centric
APIs.
Or in scoped style elements in HTML5... I still think explicit is
better than implicit though, with the added benefit that it will not
require changes to the basic algorithms of current selectors
implementations.
--
David "liorean" Andersson
- --
Alex Russell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] A99F 8785 F491 D5FD 04D7 ACD9 4158 FFDF 2894 6876
[EMAIL PROTECTED] BE03 E88D EABB 2116 CC49 8259 CF78 E242 59C3 9723
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFH2Zjiz3jiQlnDlyMRAohKAJ48WdsSQCZYM9/s6gxDCIxO2+NydACfQsH1
aTtVURYl/NvkW4dnz8UgUS0=
=ESc3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
