Shouldn't it be child() and children() if we have parent() and parents()?
I feel like we are mangling plural/singular rules.
Glen
On 9/12/07, Richard D. Worth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/12/07, Glen Lipka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I am confused. Why aren't the grandchildren being included in the call
> > for children()?
> > Using $("#content *") gets all the grandkids. I thought parents() gets
> > all the grandparents. Is children different?
>
>
> $("#content").children() is equivalent to $("#content > *")
>
> children() is a little more analogous to parent() than parents(). parent()
> moves the selection up one level (always 1 element, except for
> document/root), children() moves it down one level (0, 1, or more elements).
>
> One reason they might be/seem different is parent elements can have 0-many
> children, but children have at most 1 parent. So it makes sense to have a
> parent() that selects 0 or 1, and a parents() that returns 0 to many (all
> ancestors, in order from first parent to top-level/oldest ancestor). Then
> parents(':first') == parent().
>
> For all descendants, you can do .find("*").
>
> - Richard
>
>
