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

Re: Proposal: getElementsBySelector()

From: Christophe Jolif <cjolif@ilog.fr>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:58:59 +0100
Message-ID: <45C889A3.9060907@ilog.fr>
To: David Håsäther <hasather@gmail.com>
CC: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>

Hi David,

David Håsäther wrote:
> On 2007-02-06 14:07, Christophe Jolif wrote:
> 
>> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> +1
> 
> Why? Because dojo has a method with a different name (not very similar 
> in my opinion) that does something completely different?

1/ My support to this decision is not linked to what I just discovered 
in dojo (actually just while typing my email) but just the consequence 
of the arguments I already stated several times on this same list. In 
short: everyone is not as omniscient as the "web short naming gurus", 
most people need descriptive names to do their every day job correctly 
with the tons of API they have to cope in today programming word.

2/ As I said I just discovered the dojo method, so I might be wrong, but 
it looks to me that getElementsByClass returns the elements matching a 
particular CSS class just as getElementsBySelector is returning the 
elements matching a given CSS selector. A short test is confirming it 
does that (and maybe other stuff but at least that)... So that looks 
actually very similar to me in the way the naming is done and the fact 
matching on the CSS class is a subset of matching on any CSS selector. 
But I might have missed something, please be more explicit when you say 
they are *completely* different?

-- 
Christophe
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 13:57:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:57 GMT