- From: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 20:41:49 -0500
- To: "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.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>
On 12/20/06, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote: > > I disagree. Anyone who uses both getElementsByTagName and > getElementByID encounters a pattern. They do not encounter a pattern of return values, allowed arguments, handling of strange arguments (e.g. document.getElementById(null)), or error handling. > > >If the issue is only one of clarity and consistency, then I > >heartily concur with Ian--that's what editors are for. > > How many web developers do you think read the entire spec rather than > dive in looking for API calls? > I think most authors cut and paste code. People that consider themselves web developers probably cut and paste code from sources known to be comprehensive (W3Schools, MDC, MSDN, etc). My point was that we should let spec editors deal with naming, argument formats and order, etc. If implementors or authors come back screaming, then that probably indicates an issue. I don't see evidence of hardship. Just likes and dislikes from most people (on both sides). I'll confess I'm completely shocked to discover people advocating the longer names. I guess they smell like standard. I sort of assumed that one benefit of getting *everyone* together would be that we could use nice short names without feeling guilty. I don't think using matchAll carries a cost, unless we're worried that The One True Query Syntax will emerge and be the rightful owner of all generic-sounding names. > >Recommendations seem to vary widely in that regard. > > HA! Amen to that. Well, well. Common ground. :) -- Robert Sayre
Received on Thursday, 21 December 2006 01:41:56 UTC