On 2011-11-24 00:52, Yehuda Katz wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Sean Hogan<shogu...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
The alternative option (find / findAll / matches can accept explicit
:scope, but will otherwise imply :scope) seems to be where all the
ambiguity lies.
What exact cases are ambiguous with "find/findAll/matches can accept
explicit :scope, but will otherwise imply :scope"?
The problems to be solved with automatically switching between implied
and explicit :scope are basically in determining what exactly counts as
an explicit :scope. The answers to each of these has is trade off
between complexity and functionality, with the simplest option being
always implying :scope.
* Is explicit :scope allowed at the beginning of each selector?
find(":scope>div");
find("body.foo :scope>div");
* Does :scope inside functional pseudo-classes count?
find(":not(:scope)");
find(":matches(:scope)");
If yes, does the first match the whole document, only descendants, or
descendants plus siblings?
* If using an explicit :scope, can it match itself?
find(":scope") // Return null or the element itself?
* Is :scope always implied if it begins with an explicit combinator
other than descendant, even if :scope is used elsewhere?
find(">div :scope");
find("+div :scope");
find("~div :scope");
* There's also the general issue, not related to :scope, about how the
reference combinator affects the range of potential matches.
label.find("/for/ input")
Based on the above issues, what happens in this case?
foo.find(">label /for/ input+:scope~span)
--
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
