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

Re: ACTION-87: Selectors API

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:30:03 +0200
To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.s9o6gdnq64w2qv@id-c0020.customers.swisscom-eurospot.com>

On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:19:46 +0200, Lachlan Hunt  
<lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
> I like match() too because it's much shorter than  
> getElementsBySelector(),

Right... :-)


> but I think the fact that it only returns a single node is confusing and  
> that, in most cases, authors would want the whole collection, not just  
> the first match.  I think it would be better if the methods were:
>
> [...]

In that case you have this issue:

* match("foo")[0] (when match() would return a list)
* matchOne("foo")
* matchFirst("foo")

The shortest name should represent the most efficient method imho.


> What's wrong with using:
>
> var selectorMatches = document.matchAll('#bleh elm3', resolver);
>
> There may still be use cases for matching a sub tree, so it may be worth  
> extending the Element interface too, but all the ones I can think of can  
> be handled by simply writing a more specific selector.

Yeah, except when you get a random element back like event.target. And  
even in that case you can probably give the event some random ID in most  
cases but it's not really flexible.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2006 13:30:14 GMT

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