On 12/01/10 5:30 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Sean Hogan wrote:
In summary, the proposed :scope pseudo-class only acts as a scope for
the query in special cases, not in the general case.
Yes, I'm aware of that. That was basically my reasoning for
attempting to change it to :reference, but that name wasn't
particularly well received either. However, keep in mind, I'd prefer
to avoid having this turn into another naming debate. Selectors API
has suffered enough in the past as a result of that.
So if you have anything more to add, I'd request that you check the
archives for this list and www-style for messages relating to
:scope/:reference/:context, etc. to see what arguments have been
raised previously.
The most recent discussion of and objections to :reference are in this
thread from www-style last September. There were also other
objections raised with me on IRC and told to me directly.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Sep/thread.html#msg251
In particular, this one lists most of the alternatives have been
considered, and it also sums up why the selector pre-processing for
scoped selectors got watered down to its current state.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Sep/0317.html
Yes, it sounds like I have nothing to add.
The new refNodes argument to querySelector*() will be useful, even if
":scope" is the place-holder for refNodes.
The new queryScopedSelector*() methods add no value. I suspect that if /
when they get removed there will be no objection to renaming :scope to
something more appropriate.
I've been an active part of discussion on this list. If you don't want
to have the same arguments on two different lists you should reference
the other list and discussion a bit more promptly.