Garrett Smith wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Lachlan Huntlachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote:
And overload the querySelector() and querySelectorAll() methods to also
accept a Selector object as the selector parameter.
createSelector would allow the browser to parse and compile the
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote:
Garrett Smith wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Lachlan Huntlachlan.h...@lachy.id.au
wrote:
And overload the querySelector() and querySelectorAll() methods to also
accept a Selector object as the selector
On 9/25/09 1:35 AM, Garrett Smith wrote:
No, you did not say it is slow. I'm saying that your laptop is
probably a lot more powerful than a mobile device with a browser, such
as Blackberry9000. Do you agree with that?
Sure. It's a pretty self-evidently true claim.
that said, note that on a
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 23, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au
wrote:
*Scoped Queries*
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5860
This has been
Yes, the base for event delegation is certainly something
like that. I just wanted to make clear that the main reason
for adding this functionality (IMO) is event delegation.
I'll let event delegation library creators chime in on the
details on what is needed for making really efficient
Sean Hogan wrote:
I think a couple of those features are pretty low priority:
- I don't see the point of collective queries on NodeLists.
Are there any references for the proposal?
Otherwise I can't think of any useful queries that can't already be
achieved with a single querySelectorAll().
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Mike Wilson mike...@hotmail.com wrote:
Yes, the base for event delegation is certainly something
like that. I just wanted to make clear that the main reason
for adding this functionality (IMO) is event delegation.
I'll let event delegation library creators
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Sean Hogan wrote:
I think a couple of those features are pretty low priority:
- I don't see the point of collective queries on NodeLists.
Are there any references for the proposal?
Otherwise I can't think of any useful queries that can't already be
achieved with a single
Garrett Smith wrote:
QuerySelector could be extended to have properties:
readonly attribute boolean valid
StaticNodeList match(in HTMLElement contextNode)
What's the valid property for? It seems redundant. If the selector
isn't valid, then the factory method should throw an error when
Garrett Smith wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Mike Wilson mike...@hotmail.com wrote:
Yes, the base for event delegation is certainly something
like that. I just wanted to make clear that the main reason
for adding this functionality (IMO) is event delegation.
I'll let event
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Sean Hogan wrote:
I think a couple of those features are pretty low priority:
- I don't see the point of collective queries on NodeLists.
Are there any references for the proposal?
Otherwise I can't think of any useful queries that can't already be
John Resig wrote:
Filtering NodeLists/StaticNodeLists, Queries on NodeLists/StaticNodeLists:
Neither of these are useful, as is, to libraries.
I believe this would be handled using the Array.filter() method, with a
callback that checks if the selector matches the element, as Jonas pointed
Sean Hogan wrote:
http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090922#l-
I couldn't see where it was needed, only that it was possible in jQuery.
I still can't think of any NodeLists that this could usefully be applied
to that couldn't be achieved with a single querySelectorAll(). At least
So the question is, at which point in the chain do you want to address
this issue? The options are:
A) Have specific selectors API feauture that allowed executing a
selector query on a whole collection of elements that returns a
single, sorted collection of unique elements.
B) A
John Resig wrote:
So the question is, at which point in the chain do you want to address
this issue? The options are:
A) Have specific selectors API feauture that allowed executing a
selector query on a whole collection of elements that returns a
single, sorted collection of unique
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 9/24/09 6:29 AM, Sean Hogan wrote:
I would be surprised if an implementation didn't create an internal
lookup table keyed off the selector text.
Gecko doesn't. Webkit doesn't.
I just checked really quickly, and on
On Sep 23, 2009, at 8:37 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 8:17 PM, John Resig jere...@gmail.com wrote:
Quick Summary of my opinions:
Matches Selector: Super-super useful - critical, in fact. We're not
able to
remove jQuery's selector engine until this is implemented. I'm
On 9/24/09 2:17 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Gecko doesn't. Webkit doesn't.
I just checked really quickly, and on my machine (a year-plus old laptop)
That is probably many times faster, and can probably be much more
liberal,
On 9/24/09 2:36 PM, Sam Weinig wrote:
WebKit now also has an implementation of Element.matchesSelector() (we
are calling ours webkitMatchesSelector for the time being).
[https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29703]
Right. The Gecko one is mozMatchesSelector.
I bet we'd both love to rename
Not quite. It depends what's being done and which steps need to be
performed and how. AIUI, there are 3 major steps involved here.
1. Obtain a collection of Elements. This could be in one or more
Arrays and/or NodeLists, depending on th.
2. Iteratively execute a selector query on all
On Sep 24, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 9/24/09 2:36 PM, Sam Weinig wrote:
WebKit now also has an implementation of Element.matchesSelector()
(we
are calling ours webkitMatchesSelector for the time being).
[https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29703]
Right. The Gecko one
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote:
It would be great to have a separate, standalone, function that handles
these merge/sort/unique operations for collections of DOM elements
(especially if they're disconnected from the document!).
The proposal from
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:59 AM, John Resig jre...@mozilla.com wrote:
Another alternative
would be to implement the merge/sort/unique method and have it return a
NodeList (which would, then, have qSA).
For example:
document.createNodeList([ ... some elements ... ]).querySelectorAll(em,
My concern with this API is that it forces the implementation to
always sort the array, even if already sorted, and then do a merge
sort on the individual results from querySelectorAll. It would be
faster to simply run the query on each node, and then merge sort the
results.
That's not a
On 9/24/09 5:09 PM, John Resig wrote:
It's only if it's an array that we have to do the dance. Even in the
case where the array of results is already in document order the sort
will be incredibly fast (O(N)).
O(N) in number of nodes in the array, and that assumes that the array is
not being
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:09 PM, John Resig jre...@mozilla.com wrote:
My concern with this API is that it forces the implementation to
always sort the array, even if already sorted, and then do a merge
sort on the individual results from querySelectorAll. It would be
faster to simply run the
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
If this is how it's implemented it actually becomes really useful to
have
the NodeList-based element filtering.
document.createNodeList([ ... some elements ...
]).filterSelector(em,
strong)
(Since this
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 9/24/09 6:29 AM, Sean Hogan wrote:
I would be surprised if an implementation didn't create an internal
lookup table keyed off the selector text.
Gecko doesn't. Webkit doesn't.
I just checked really quickly, and on my machine (a year-plus old
laptop) parsing the .foo
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Mike Wilson wrote:
My first priority would be Matches Selector, and see to that
it fulfills the needs for event delegation.
Is there any special functionality that would be needed to achieve
this? If I understand correctly, event delegation just needs to be
able to
On 9/24/09 6:45 PM, Sean Hogan wrote:
That is surprising. Does the CSS engine do the same? If the CSS engine
doesn't store the parsed selector then it probably doesn't matter for JS
calls either.
In Gecko the CSS engine stores the parsed selector. In addition, it
stores the selectors in
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 9/24/09 6:45 PM, Sean Hogan wrote:
That is surprising. Does the CSS engine do the same? If the CSS engine
doesn't store the parsed selector then it probably doesn't matter for JS
calls either.
In Gecko the CSS engine stores the parsed selector. In addition, it
stores
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 9/24/09 2:17 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Gecko doesn't. Webkit doesn't.
I just checked really quickly, and on my machine (a year-plus old laptop)
Hi,
I'm planning to look at beginning work on Selectors API v2 soon to
add a number of requested features that didn't make it into the first
version. This e-mail is a summary of what is being considered, and is
intended to start discussion about which ones are really worth focussing
on,
My first priority would be Matches Selector, and see to that
it fulfills the needs for event delegation.
Best regards
Mike Wilson
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Hi,
I'm planning to look at beginning work on Selectors API v2 soon to
add a number of requested features that didn't make it into the
Mike Wilson wrote:
My first priority would be Matches Selector, and see to that
it fulfills the needs for event delegation.
Is there any special functionality that would be needed to achieve this?
If I understand correctly, event delegation just needs to be able to
check whether the event
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote:
*Scoped Queries*
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5860
This has been discussed extensively in the past. Basically, the idea is
that the selector would be evaluated in the scope of the element, in a way
I think a couple of those features are pretty low priority:
- I don't see the point of collective queries on NodeLists.
Are there any references for the proposal?
Otherwise I can't think of any useful queries that can't already be
achieved with a single querySelectorAll().
- Filtering
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote:
Hi,
I'm planning to look at beginning work on Selectors API v2 soon to add a
number of requested features that didn't make it into the first version.
This e-mail is a summary of what is being considered, and is
Quick Summary of my opinions:
Matches Selector: Super-super useful - critical, in fact. We're not able to
remove jQuery's selector engine until this is implemented. I'm working with
the devs at Mozilla to get an implementation landed. Already have a test
suite in place.
Filtering
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 8:17 PM, John Resig jere...@gmail.com wrote:
Quick Summary of my opinions:
Matches Selector: Super-super useful - critical, in fact. We're not able to
remove jQuery's selector engine until this is implemented. I'm working with
the devs at Mozilla to get an
On Sep 23, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au
wrote:
*Scoped Queries*
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5860
This has been discussed extensively in the past. Basically, the
idea is
that the selector
41 matches
Mail list logo
