so maybe we don't need a matchesSelector then?
We totally need a matchesSelector. It's perfect for event delegation.
In Diego Perini's NWMatcher his `match` method is what drives the lib.
https://github.com/dperini/nwmatcher/blob/master/src/nwmatcher-base.js#L391
Though he avoids the matchesSelector API at the moment because the
cost of testing/avoiding cross-browser bugs kills any perf gains.
https://github.com/dperini/nwmatcher/commit/10a48ac54c3673c125c540447bb74c75cd1a9ed4
-JDD
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Yehuda Katz wyc...@gmail.com wrote:
Yehuda Katz
(ph) 718.877.1325
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:49 AM, William Edney bed...@technicalpursuit.com
wrote:
All -
I'm going to throw my 2 cents in here and say that, whatever ends up
happening with scoping, that the equivalent of the current
querySelector()/querySelectorAll() should be named matchesSelector().
I'd be ok with querySelector/querySelectorAll/matchesSelector and
find/findAll/matches
As I have said, I personally consider qS/qSA to be implementation mistakes
and would like to see find and findAll replace querySelector[All] in all
cases, so maybe we don't need a matchesSelector then?
As a longtime Web developer (and trainer of other Web developers) it is
important to me to have consistency in naming above all else. JS libraries
can always alias / wrap these names should they so desire. Name shortening
has already been occurring... if we had followed 'old W3C DOM-style naming',
querySelectorAll() would've been 'documentGetElementsBySelector()'.
Providing a balance between short names and descriptive names is
important. One of the things that drives me nuts about the (non-standard)
'document.evaluate()' call (exists on FF / Webkit to query using XPath), is
that it is not explicit enough... 'evaluate' what? JS? XPath? CSS?
While I don't disagree that shorter names could've been chosen all of
those years ago, as Austin Powers would say, That train has sailed,
baby...
Cheers,
- BIll
On Nov 25, 2011, at 8:04 AM, Sean Hogan wrote:
On 25/11/11 6:49 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
On 2011-11-25 01:07, Sean Hogan wrote:
On 24/11/11 7:46 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
On 2011-11-23 23:38, Sean Hogan wrote:
- If you want to use selectors with :scope implied at the start of
each
selector in the selector list (as most js libs currently do) then
you
use find / findAll / matches.
The matches method will not change behaviour depending on whether or
not there is an explicit :scope because it is always evaluated in the
context of the entire tree. There is never an implied :scope inserted
into the selector, so there will not be two alternative matches
methods.
If and when there is a need for a matching method that does imply
:scope
(which I provided a use-case for in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/0342.html)
then it could be called matches().
Oh, it wasn't clear that you were talking about a case involving
explicit reference nodes before.
But adding two separate methods that are only subtly different would
add more complexity for authors, since the difference will not always be
obvious where there is no explicit reference nodes supplied and they may
get
them confused.
In fact, with a method that always prepends :scope, it could result in
an unexpected result in some cases:
e.g.
root.matches(html.foo);
root.matchesSelector(html.foo);
These aren't obviously different, but when you consider that the first
would always prepend :scope under your proposal, the first would
unexpectedly return false, since it's equivalent to:
root.matchesSelector(:scope html.foo);
This would happen whether the root element is the root of the document,
or the root of a disconnected tree.
We could instead address your use case by implying :scope if a
refElement or refNodes is supplied. That way, if the author calls
.matches() without any refNodes, they get the expected result with no
implied :scope. If they do supply refNodes, and there is no explicit
:scope, then imply :scope at the beginning.
This approach would be completely backwards compatible with the
existing implementations, as nothing changes until refNodes/refElement and
:scope are supported.
You mentioned this before, but anyway:
el.matches(div span) - ok
el.matches( div span) - throws, because no :scope implied
el.matches(div :scope span) - ok, but can't match anything
el.matches( div span, refNode) - ok
el.matches(div :scope span, refNode) - ok
el.matches(div span, refNode) - what does this do? How do you know
that the intention isn't to just ignore the refNode if there is no explicit
:scope?
I guess if you wanted this last behavior, you could call something like
/:scope\b/.test(selector)
before-hand and if it is false then not pass the refNode to matches().
I'm not sure if there are other
