Side navigation
#13629 closed bug (notabug)
Opened March 19, 2013 08:44PM UTC
Closed April 05, 2013 01:32AM UTC
Rename matchesSelector to matches
Reported by: | m_gol | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | low | Milestone: | None |
Component: | selector | Version: | 2.0b2 |
Keywords: | Cc: | ||
Blocked by: | Blocking: |
Description
According to the current version of the spec:
Attachments (0)
Pull request: Sizzle needs more similar changes btw. Relevant: http://caniuse.com/matchesselector Replying to [comment:3 m_gol]: A Sizzle issue would be perfect. :) Here you are: https://github.com/jquery/sizzle/issues/198 Shouldn't we wait for at least one browser to implement this or for the spec to actually be stable? So far you've pointed at 2 sources: 1) The new spec, which specifically says that it is not stable; 2) caniuse which says that not a single browser supports the new name. I'll repeat my comment from pull request: consequently, you should also remove If that's what you prefer, I can update my pull requests. I just can think of no reason to keep in the code a method name implemented nowhere and taken from an unstable and out-of-date working draft so, IMHO, it should be changed anyway, one way or the other. Replying to [comment:8 m_gol]: Except that prefixed versions WERE implemented. We should always wait for at least one implementation before writing code to support a proposed feature. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT lock browser vendors into an API based on an unstable spec and a previous prefixed implementation. We're killing the standards process if we do. Exactly. Prefixed versions were implemented, e.g. should be changed to: i.e. the Do you want me to make such a change? It seems a bit premature to assume no browser vendor will implement an unprefixed Does it happen for browser vendors to implement an unprefixed version of an experimental feature based on an out-of-date spec working draft? I see timmywill has removed This ticket can now be closed, obviously.Change History (14)
Changed March 19, 2013 08:45PM UTC by
comment:1
Changed March 19, 2013 08:47PM UTC by
comment:2
Changed March 19, 2013 08:49PM UTC by
comment:3
Changed March 19, 2013 09:00PM UTC by
comment:4
Changed March 19, 2013 09:03PM UTC by
comment:5
component:
unfiled → selector
priority:
undecided → low
status:
new → open
Sizzle needs more similar changes btw.
Changed March 19, 2013 09:09PM UTC by
comment:6
Changed March 20, 2013 12:10AM UTC by
comment:7
Changed March 20, 2013 12:25AM UTC by
comment:8
docElem.matchesSelector
(and only leave prefixed versions) since it was taken from an unfinished specification not implemented anywhere as well.
Changed March 20, 2013 12:44AM UTC by
comment:9
I'll repeat my comment from pull request: consequently, you should also remove
docElem.matchesSelector
(and only leave prefixed versions) since it was taken from an unfinished specification not implemented anywhere as well.
Changed March 20, 2013 01:11AM UTC by
comment:10
_comment0:
> > I'll repeat my comment from pull request: consequently, you should also remove `docElem.matchesSelector` (and only leave prefixed versions) since it was taken from an unfinished specification not implemented anywhere as well.
\
>
\
> Except that prefixed versions WERE implemented.
\
\
Exactly. Prefixed versions were implemented, e.g. `mozMatchesSelector` & `webkitMatchesSelector` were implemented; `matchesSelector` hasn't been implemented anywhere. What I'm saying is that I understand your concerns but it means that the code:
\
{{{
\
matches = docElem.matchesSelector ||
\
docElem.mozMatchesSelector ||
\
docElem.webkitMatchesSelector ||
\
docElem.oMatchesSelector ||
\
docElem.msMatchesSelector
\
}}}
\
should be changed to:
\
{{{
\
matches = docElem.mozMatchesSelector ||
\
docElem.webkitMatchesSelector ||
\
docElem.oMatchesSelector ||
\
docElem.msMatchesSelector
\
}}}
\
i.e. the `docElem.matchesSelector` part should be completely removed.
\
\
Do you want me to make such a change? → 1363741934141613
_comment1:
> > I'll repeat my comment from pull request: consequently, you should also remove `docElem.matchesSelector` (and only leave prefixed versions) since it was taken from an unfinished specification not implemented anywhere as well.
\
>
\
> Except that prefixed versions WERE implemented.
\
\
Exactly. Prefixed versions were implemented, e.g. `mozMatchesSelector` & `webkitMatchesSelector` were implemented; `matchesSelector` hasn't been implemented anywhere. What I'm saying is that I understand your concerns (and agree with them!) but it means that the code:
\
{{{
\
matches = docElem.matchesSelector ||
\
docElem.mozMatchesSelector ||
\
docElem.webkitMatchesSelector ||
\
docElem.oMatchesSelector ||
\
docElem.msMatchesSelector
\
}}}
\
should be changed to:
\
{{{
\
matches = docElem.mozMatchesSelector ||
\
docElem.webkitMatchesSelector ||
\
docElem.oMatchesSelector ||
\
docElem.msMatchesSelector
\
}}}
\
i.e. the `docElem.matchesSelector` part should be completely removed.
\
\
Do you want me to make such a change? → 1363741960536420
> I'll repeat my comment from pull request: consequently, you should also remove
docElem.matchesSelector
(and only leave prefixed versions) since it was taken from an unfinished specification not implemented anywhere as well. Except that prefixed versions WERE implemented.mozMatchesSelector
& webkitMatchesSelector
were implemented; matchesSelector
hasn't been implemented anywhere. What I'm saying is that I understand your concerns but it means that the code:
matches = docElem.matchesSelector ||
docElem.mozMatchesSelector ||
docElem.webkitMatchesSelector ||
docElem.oMatchesSelector ||
docElem.msMatchesSelector
matches = docElem.mozMatchesSelector ||
docElem.webkitMatchesSelector ||
docElem.oMatchesSelector ||
docElem.msMatchesSelector
docElem.matchesSelector
part should be completely removed.
Changed March 20, 2013 01:19AM UTC by
comment:11
matchesSelector
. However, I don't have a strong opinion on whether it stays or goes.
Changed March 20, 2013 01:21AM UTC by
comment:12
Changed March 24, 2013 12:19AM UTC by
comment:13
_comment0:
I see timmywill has removed `docElem.matchesSelector` from Sizzle as I suggested. → 1364084884174722
docElem.matchesSelector
from Sizzle as I suggested.
Changed April 05, 2013 01:32AM UTC by
comment:14
resolution:
→ notabug
status:
open → closed
The correct link is:
http://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-api2/#interface-definitions