On 26/10/11 9:28 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Sean Hogan<shogu...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
On 26/10/11 7:51 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Sean Hogan<shogu...@westnet.com.au>
wrote:
I think allowing explicit :scope in findAll() will be perpetually
confusing.
I can imagine someone looking at old code like:
e.findAll("div.foo span, div.bar :scope span")
and asking themselves "what's the rule again? If there's :scope in the
selector then there's no :scope implied? Or was that just on each single
selector? Or is :scope always implied at the start of the whole selector
list and that's why it's explicit in the second part? Dammit, why didn't
we
just use querySelectorAll() if we wanted explicit :scope?"
Using :scope explicitly at the beginning of selectors is necessary if
we want a sane way to have selector lists chain off of the scoping
element. I'm okay with the string starting with a combinator when
it's a single selector like "+ foo", but not when it's a selector list
like "+ foo, + bar".
I didn't follow that. Why does findAll() need to support explicit :scope?
Did you not understand my example? el.find("+ foo, + bar") feels
really weird and I don't like it. I'm okay with a single selector
starting with a combinator, like el.find("+ foo"), but not a selector
list.
So "+foo" becomes ":scope +foo"
But "+foo, +bar" throws an error?
What about:
+foo, bar
:scope+foo, bar
body :scope+foo, :scope+bar
What do JS lib selectors do? Do any support :scope? Do any not support
"+foo, +bar", ">foo, >bar"?
Sean
