Hi,
> I realize that, but do you all think that this is the expected
> behavior?
Yes. To me, as Maarten pointed out, this:
$('foo').select('div.div_a > span.span_a')
is equivalent to this CSS selector:
#foo div.div_a > span.span_a
which says to select all "span_a" spans that are direct children of
any "div_a" div that is a descendant of #foo. That latter criterion
would not include #foo even if #foo is a div.div_a, because #foo is
not a descendant of itself.
I would find the other behavior surprising. Again, I can understand
how you (and apparently others) got there, but that's not the behavior
I would be expecting.
--
T.J. Crowder
tj / crowder software / com
Independent Software Engineer, consulting services available
On Mar 9, 12:16 am, Marc Liyanage <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 5:34 pm, Quleczka <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 8 Mar, 14:51, Marc Liyanage <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > From my experiments I get the impression that the select() context
> > > element and all of its ancestors are completely taken out of the
> > > selector match calculation.
>
> > Exaclty :)
>
> > It selects from elements INSIDE of given one. So it can find only 2
> > elements because first one is not considered as matching the rule
> > 'div.div_a > span.span_a' cause first div is the one you use to call
> > select function.
>
> I realize that, but do you all think that this is the expected
> behavior?
>
> I would not expect the implementation to *select* elements outside of
> the context scope, but I would definitely expect it to consider such
> elements for the *selector evaluation*. In my mind, the selector
> evaluation is absolute and independent of the context node, only
> considering the structural relationships.
>
> In this case, the first span
>
> 1.) *has* a parent div.div_a after all, and that is what the selector
> says (and this part has nothing to do with the context element), and
> 2.) it *is* a descendant of the select() context element
>
> so I think it should be selected.
>
> The implementation as it is now mixes up these two things, in a way
> that is really suprising for me. I'm not saying it's wrong, but if
> this is intended, I think the documentation should mention that the
> context node does influence the selector evaluation.
>
> @Tobie
>
> I just read what Resig wrote and this is interesting:
>
> > This is due to the fact that element-rooted queries are handled by "finding
> > all the elements that match the given selector -- rooted in the document --
> > then filtering by the ones that have the specified element as an ancestor."
> > This is completely unacceptable. Not only is it not intuitive [...]
>
> To me this is *exactly* the way I would have expected it to work. I
> guess what's intuitive for one person is surprising for the next :-)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
