On Jan 28, 2007, at 12:11 AM, Anne van Kesteren 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). Even with Björn's suggestion, the plural version still allocates and destroys the collection object that you don't need if you are getting a single version. Also it's more awkward to use in the case where you want a single item. I admit though that if the name ends up being longer than getElementById as currently proposed, it's less likely authors would use it in place gEBI. Regards, Maciej > > 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. > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > <http://annevankesteren.nl/> > <http://www.opera.com/> >Received on Sunday, 28 January 2007 22:42:30 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:56 GMT