W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > February 2007

Re: Proposal: getElementsBySelector()

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:48:53 +0530
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tnbc5rk3wxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:41:10 +0530, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:

> Given the input from Björn I suppose there's no real need for a method
> that returns a single element node (assuming implementations make that
> optimization). Given that, I propose we rename .getAll() to
> .getElementsBySelector() and drop .get() (on both Document and Element).
> One advantage is that it's consistent with the naming people already use
> for custom written functions that have this functionality. In theory it's
> also not harder to type than .getElementsByTagName(). The only thing that
> makes it differ from the other getElementsBy* method(s) is that it doesn't
> return a live NodeList. I don't see that as a major problem.
> If there are no strong objections I'll implement this in the specification.

Not having heard strong objections, and having had support for 
getElementsBySelector() that is at least as strong as anything else, I think (with 
my chair's hat) this can be taken as the current resolution of the naming debate.

Which would also resolve ISSUE-110.

Any objections?



Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
chaals@opera.com Try Opera 9.1 http://opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 06:19:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:23 UTC