On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Yehuda Katz <wyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yehuda Katz > (ph) 718.877.1325 > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Roland Steiner > <rolandstei...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 14:19, Yehuda Katz <wyc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Yehuda Katz >>> (ph) 718.877.1325 >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/21/11 11:31 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Make sense. >>>>>> 2) Not break existing content. >>>>>> 3) Be short. >>>>> >>>>> .matches >>>>> .is >>> >>> I like .is, the name jQuery uses for this purpose. Any reason not to go >>> with it? >> >> IMHO 'is' seems awfully broad in meaning and doesn't very well indicate >> that the parameter should be a selector. Inasmuch I like .matches better. > > It's really clear in actual usage: > someElement.is("div a:first-child");
Please don't grab "is"! This is the property/attribute we want to use to identify components: <div is="foobarf"></div> ... div.is == 'foobarf' :DG< > >> >> Also, FWIW, an 'is' attribute on elements was/is in discussion on this ML >> as one possibility to specify components. >> >> Cheers, >> - Roland >