timeless wrote:
This specification introduces two methods that take a group of selectors
it requires a script like the following that iterates
that => which ?
No, "that" is correct in this case.
With these methods, it is easier to match a set of Element nodes
based on specific criteria.
easier than what? (yes, i know the next sentence would explain, but I
don't think English allows for that.)
I rephrased it to the following:
"With these methods, it is easier to match a set of Element nodes
based on specific criteria, than having to subsequently filter the
result of calling other methods like getElementsByTagName()."
The implementation must first trim any leading or trailing
whitespace from the value of the selectors parameter.
or => and ?
I think "or" is actually correct in this case, but to remove any
confusion, I've changed it to "and/or".
If the user agent also supports some level of CSS, the
implementation should support the same set of selectors in both
these APIs and CSS.
This is poorly written, at first parse I concluded that selectors
weren't CSS (there is no CSS level 0), and CSS3 comes in modules.
I do not understand what you mean, nor what is wrong with the sentence.
What is it about the sentence that implies there is a CSS level 0?
Selectors was part of CSS levels 1 and 2, but as of level 3, it's an
independent specification.
The goal is presumably to indicate that if some other entrypoint to
CSS supports something, then this API should support the same thing
with the same syntax. But it didn't manage to read that way.
I do not understand this either. The point of the sentence is to say if
if the UA supports, or at least partially supports, CSS level 1, 2, 3 or
any subsequent level, then it should support the same set of Selectors.
The NodeList object returned by the querySelectorAll() method must
be static, not live. ([DOM-LEVEL-3-CORE], section 1.1.1) Subsequent
changes the structure of the underlying document must not be
reflected in the NodeList object.
...
DOM3 Core defines several methods for checking for interface
support, or for obtaining implementations of interfaces, using
feature strings. ([DOM-LEVEL-3-CORE], section 1.3.6) A DOM
application can use these methods, each of which accept feature and
version parameters, using the values "Selectors-API" and "1.0"
(respectively).
I believe that the parenthetical should be part of the first sentence
instead of after the period.
Fixed both.
var x = document.querySelector("#foo, #bar");
x would contain the first element in the document with an ID of either foo or
bar (or both).
1. could you change 'contain' - i read contain to mean list, which of
course is wrong for querySelector()
I'm not convinced there is a problem with the word "contain" in this case.
2. it might be null - or whatever the return is for the case where
there's no match
3. i think the '(or both)' bit doesn't add value, even understanding
the case where there's a node matching #foo#bar, if it's the first
that matches #foo or #bar, it's still the first that matches #foo or
#bar and the fact that it matches #foo#bar is absolutely irrelevant
I removed "(or both)" and appended "or null if there is no such element".
The methods can also be invoked on elements.
The methods _defined in this specification_ ...
I don't think that extra qualification is necessary in this case.
In ECMAScript, the language binding also allows NodeLists to be
addressed using the array notation, so that loop could be rewritten
like this:
using array notation
I'm fairly sure "using the array notation" is grammatically correct in
this case.
This would cause each selected element to be removed from the DOM,
but each element will remain in the NodeList. If the list were a
live NodeList, removing an item from the DOM would also remove the
element from the list and adjust the indexes of subsequent
elements. That would have adverse effects upon the loop because not
all selected elements would be processed.
I know that explanatory text is valuable, but i don't particularly
like this explanatory text in a normative section. Could you make this
a non-normative note?
The entire example section is already non-normative.
excluding all others, requires an additional processing to filter the result.
requires additional processing, or an additional step
Fixed.
--
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
