W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > December 2006

RE: Selectors API naming

From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:23:04 -0800
Message-ID: <44FAFFCDE516434D84E6B62121DB6A44041373E4@WIN-MSG-21.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
CC: Martijn <martijn.martijn@gmail.com>, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Dave Massy <dave.massy@microsoft.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>

?  I never claimed there were technical problems with "matchAll" or
"select" either - just that they didn't fit the pattern established by
the other DOM Recommendation APIs, and therefore weren't the best choice
for an API that was supposed to fit in the larger scope of the web
object model platform.  There's no _technical_ problem with calling it
"xyz()".

Perhaps it's strongly worded - I consider it "polluting" an object if
properties/methods/events are added on that object that might have more
than one meaning and aren't clearly separated.  You could make it look
like document.xPath.select() and then it's clear; you could say
document.selectXPath() and that's clear too.  If you say
document.select() it could have multiple meanings.

My point about DOM L3 XPath is that it's a Note, and therefore as much
of a W3C "standard" as Behavioral Extensions to CSS[1].  To become a
Recommendation, it has to go through a lot more analysis by multiple
parties and multiple implementations, etc. - I know it feels like this
should be a quick thing to slam out, but it really does pay to think
about the details of usage up front.  This isn't "rename what already
works" - it's "let's build something that works properly the first time
out."

-Chris

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/becss
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Sayre [mailto:sayrer@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 1:46 PM
To: Chris Wilson
Cc: Martijn; Jim Ley; Ian Hickson; Dave Massy; Anne van Kesteren; Web
API WG (public)
Subject: Re: Selectors API naming

On 12/20/06, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote:
> The DOM L3 XPath specification is a Note, not a Recommendation.

That's right. I haven't heard of any technical problems with that
standard's document.evaluate method name.

> I would expect to have the same discussion about minimalism and

Looking over this thread, I have to admit I would expect the same.
However, my hope is that  W3C members would find better things to do
than rename what already works.

> polluting the document object if it were to be Proposed.

I don't understand what you mean by "polluting". What impact do
matchSingle and matchAll have on the ecology of the document object?

All that said, maybe it would be expedient to stick with the really,
really long names and standardize the shortcuts, using a method on
window to turn them on. That way, older browsers that don't implement
the "Quick DOM" standard could be catered to by adding a script
element.

-- 

Robert Sayre

"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
Received on Thursday, 21 December 2006 00:24:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:56 GMT