Yehuda Katz (ph) 718.877.1325
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:16 PM, James Graham <jgra...@opera.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Yehuda Katz wrote: > > >> Yehuda Katz >> (ph) 718.877.1325 >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoe...@gmx.net> >> wrote: >> * Yehuda Katz wrote: >> >Most people would accomplish that using jQuery. Something like: >> > >> >var previous = $(current).closest("tr").prev(**) >> > >> >I'm not exactly sure what `current` is in this case. What >> edge-cases are >> >you worried about when you say that the JavaScript is "quite >> involved"? >> >> It is unlikely that your code is equivalent to the code I provided, and >> sure enough, you can point out in all discussions about convenience APIs >> that people could use a library. I don't see how that is relevant here. >> >> >> It's relevant because Tab's argument is that a mix of selectors and JS >> APIs will work, and I'm demonstrating that by showing that that's what >> *people actually do* today. >> > > Of course that can be taken in one of two ways; it either shows that it's > fine to have a limited selection DSL because people can fall back on using > a full programming language, or shows that today's selction DSLs have > failed because people are being forced to fall back on a full programming > language and the whole of jQuery to satisfy their needs. > On the flip-side, jQuery gives us a good set of primitive DOM traversal methods that people have used successfully to satisfy their needs. It would probably be worth considering implementing some of them natively. Which is, I think, Tab's point.