On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:39 AM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote: > Overall, I wholeheartedly support the proposal. > I don't really see the benefit of allowing starting with a combinator. I > think it's a rare case that you actually care about the scope element and in > those cases, using :scope is fine. Instead of element.findAll("> div > > .thinger"), you use element.findAll(":scope > div > .thinger"). That said, I > don't object to considering the :scope implied if the selector starts with a > combinator.
Right, I think the argument for allowing a combinator start is two-fold: 1.) the libraries allow it, so should DOM 2.) we know the thing on the left, it's the implicit scope. Shorter is better, so allowing the implicitness here is a win on that basis I have a mild preference for argument #2. Shorter, without loss of clarity, for common stuff should nearly always win. > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Boris Zbarsky <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 10/18/11 7:38 PM, Alex Russell wrote: >>> >>> The resolution I think is most natural is to split on "," >> >> That fails with :any, with the expanded :not syntax, on attr selectors, >> etc. >> >> You can split on ',' while observing proper paren and quote nesting, but >> that can get pretty complicated. > > Can we define it as a sequence of selectors and be done with it? That way it > can be defined as using the same parsing as CSS. > >>> >>> A minor point is how to order the >>> items in the returned flattened list are ordered (document order? the >>> natural result of concat()?). >> >> Document order. > > Definitely. >> >> -Boris >> >> > >
