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

Re: [ANN] Selectors API

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:26:37 +0200
To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ta6vmnnq64w2qv@id-c0020.driveway.uu.nl>

Hi Cameron, your feedback is much appreciated!


On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:59:21 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>  
wrote:
>> Since it's the introduction.
>
> Ok, but with the current wording it sounds like you are contradicting
> yourself, equivalent to something like “the methods take a selector—no
> that’s not right, they really take a group of selectors”.  Perhaps:
>
>   This specification introduces two methods which take a group of
>   selectors (often mistakenly just called “selectors”) as argument
>   and return the matched elements as result.
>
> where “group of selectors” is a link to the definition in CSS 2.1 or CSS
> 3 Selectors.  Or something.  (Actually, checking CSS 3 Selectors, there
> isn’t a nice definition for a group of selectors in section 5 like there
> is for selector in section 4.)

I didn't make it a link, but I did change the wording  
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-api/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8  
to something along the lines of what you suggested.


>>>  ▪ (1.3) Although it’s obviously a reasonably subjective issue, FWIW I
>>>    say to use select and selectAll.
>>
>> I registered more votes for this and I personally would like to use them
>> as well, but the main concern is that authors would confuse them with
>> selectNode and selectSingleNode (used for XPath). What's your take on  
>> that?
>
> For those authors not just copying and pasting code, I don’t think it
> will be much of a problem.  If they do confuse them initially, it won’t
> take them long to work out they have typed the wrong one.
>
> If you find that it is important to take into account these IE XPath
> function names, perhaps you can align them more closely by using
> matchNodes and matchSingleNode.

Yeah, I'll think about it.


>>>  ▪ (2.1) I think the term “document order” is sufficiently known
>>>  that
>>>    it’s unnecessary to say that it uses a “depth-first pre-order
>>>    traversal”.
>>
>> I think being clear doesn't hurt here.
>
> Ok.  Maybe move the “document order” to the previous paragraph, since
> that’s where the “depth-first pre-order traversal” is first mentioned.

Fair enough, done that.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 15 June 2006 13:26:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:55 GMT