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

Re: ACTION-87: Selectors API

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 16:20:25 +0200
To: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.s9josbb064w2qv@id-c0020.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:45:21 +0100, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com> wrote:
>> Fair enough, here are the requirements for the name:
>> * short
>> * simple
> Why are these requirements for the name, no other DOM names are short  
> and simple, they're clear and unambiguous, I'd say they were the  
> requirements. If people want to use shorter names they understand in  
> their closed world the $x() approach is perfectly simple for them  
> (although discouraged by ECMA of course).

This has been noted as an open issue.

>> The reason is performance.
> Then one 1 method with an optional limit is ,uch better, it optimises  
> for all situations when the author knows how many they're interested in,  
> rather than 1 special case.  I don't see why the 1 case is that much  
> more special than the N case - as I say gEBI meets most of the 1 cases.

The 1 case returns a Node as opposed to a StaticNodeList.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Sunday, 14 May 2006 14:20:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:21 UTC