W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: Selectors API

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:58:25 +0100
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uq82jnnr64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:30:54 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Mar/0066.html
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Apr/0009.html
>>  I read those. That was long after this was initially discussed though.  
>> And also around the time I stopped being the active editor of the  
>> specification.
> Er, indeed.  Those seem to be discussion of ElementTraversal.


> I was pretty sure I'd raised the same issue with Selectors API, but the  
> W3C list search is crappy enough that I can't find the posts...  In  
> fact, the only thread on the matter I can find is the "ACTION-87:  
> Selectors API" thread (announcing that you plan to start working on the  
> spec at) at  
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2006Feb/0108.html>.  
> Was that it?

Yeah, I think  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2006Feb/0129.html gives  
the basic argument. Still sounds reasonable today although it may not  
apply to all implementations.

> In any case, the static implementation was considerably more complicated  
> in Gecko, I suspect performance is a wash in most cases, though it's  
> easy to create examples that are much faster with one or the other  
> approach.

I personally would have preferred a live API. Too late now though.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 15:15:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:14 UTC