atom feed72 messages in org.w3.public-webapiRe: ACTION-87: Selectors API
FromSent OnAttachments
29 earlier messages
Maciej StachowiakMar 22, 2006 11:22 am 
Maciej StachowiakMar 22, 2006 11:25 am 
Robin BerjonMar 22, 2006 2:01 pm 
Maciej StachowiakMar 22, 2006 2:28 pm 
Ian HicksonMar 22, 2006 2:48 pm 
Ian HicksonMar 22, 2006 2:51 pm 
Maciej StachowiakMar 22, 2006 3:20 pm 
Jim LeyMar 22, 2006 6:17 pm 
Jim LeyMar 22, 2006 6:24 pm 
Anne van KesterenMar 23, 2006 4:28 am 
Ian HicksonMar 23, 2006 2:31 pm 
Anne van KesterenMar 25, 2006 4:36 am 
Ian HicksonMar 27, 2006 3:13 pm 
Anne van KesterenApr 3, 2006 5:46 am 
Anne van KesterenApr 3, 2006 5:51 am 
lioreanMay 12, 2006 8:49 pm 
Anne van KesterenMay 13, 2006 4:15 am 
lioreanMay 13, 2006 12:08 pm 
Anne van KesterenMay 13, 2006 12:26 pm 
lioreanMay 13, 2006 2:40 pm 
Anne van KesterenMay 14, 2006 7:20 am 
lioreanMay 14, 2006 4:22 pm 
Anne van KesterenMay 15, 2006 3:15 am 
lioreanMay 16, 2006 9:29 pm 
Anne van KesterenMay 17, 2006 5:18 am 
Lachlan HuntMay 17, 2006 6:19 am 
Anne van KesterenMay 17, 2006 6:30 am 
Jim LeyMay 17, 2006 6:35 am 
Lachlan HuntMay 17, 2006 7:02 am 
Robin BerjonMay 17, 2006 7:07 am 
Anne van KesterenMay 18, 2006 12:46 am 
Jonas SickingMay 30, 2006 3:11 pm 
Jonas SickingMay 30, 2006 3:24 pm 
Jonas SickingMay 30, 2006 3:42 pm 
Ian HicksonMay 30, 2006 3:55 pm 
Robin BerjonMay 30, 2006 4:15 pm 
Jonas SickingMay 30, 2006 5:56 pm 
Anne van KesterenJun 5, 2006 2:46 am 
Anne van KesterenJun 5, 2006 2:49 am 
Jonas SickingJun 5, 2006 12:31 pm 
Charles McCathieNevileJun 5, 2006 5:37 pm 
lioreanJun 5, 2006 6:16 pm 
Maciej StachowiakJun 5, 2006 10:40 pm 
Subject:Re: ACTION-87: Selectors API
From:Anne van Kesteren (
Date:May 17, 2006 5:18:12 am

On Wed, 17 May 2006 06:29:54 +0200, liorean <> wrote:

* Several people have raised issues with naming the methods match and matchAll as those might suggest a boolean return value. Alternate suggestions have been select and selectAll.

For ECMAScript, I think "match" is a fine choice of verb and is consistent. For the closest comparison, regex 'match' isn't boolean.

Sure, I like match() as well. Mostly because it's short and simple, but there were some concerns raised.

I think there's some confusion here about what is requested and what you think is requested. What I personally mean when I want to have a way to ask for all nodes in a NodeList that matches a selector or all nodes in an element's subtree that matches a selector doesn't effect the scope of the selectors. For example:

<doc> /.../ <elm1> <elm2 xml:id="bleh"> <elm3/> <elm3/> <elm2> </elm1> /.../ </doc>

var selectorMatches=document.getElementById('bleh').matchAll(':root elm3',resolver);

This selectorMatches variable would be StaticNodeList of both nodes in the subtree below #bleh that match the selector. It would not at all affect the scoping of the selector (':root' still matches the 'doc' element, for example). It would only affect a single thing: it would ask for matches in a subtree of the document instead of all matches in the entire document tree.

That would be a different request yes. This issue was not really coming from you though... I guess I could add it, but it probably won't make the first public Working Draft.

At least one issue more that I think should be added:

Currently you can ask "gimme all matches in the document against this selector" but you can't ask "I've got this element handle (from or whereever). Does this very element match this selector?". Even if you did add 'match' and 'matchAll' on the Element interface, those don't make it any easier to get an answer to that question. So, some type of equivalent to regex.test(string) would be immensely useful.

We already discussed that and imho it's out of scope for this version.

(It can also be noted that this is the only functionality really needed. Traversal is already in the DOM1, so that is not the problem. What is missing is the functionality of asking for if an element matches a selector.)

Well yeah, and XPath is in DOM Level 3... This is more about providing a simple way of selecting a bunch of modes based on a group of selectors. This functionality is already provided in libraries and people would find this really useful. (As would I!)