- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:58:03 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Dave Massy <Dave.Massy@microsoft.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapi@w3.org
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > I can live with something like matchSelector / matchAllSelectors if that > would solve the problem (I am also happy with the current names). But I > am really not interested in a long discussion about the name - at the > end of the day we are almost guaranteed to pick something not quite > right, so let's do that early in the morning and spend the day doing > real work... In general I would agree with you, and I'm often seen pointing out that names are irrelevant since most Web authors don't speak English anyway and thus they are just opaque strings to them. My only concern here is that we avoid the mistake that was made with getElementsByTagName and getElementById -- the names should be easy to type and short. I honestly think that if the one-item method is shorter than about 6 or 7 characters, then we've made a mistake. So I think "matchSelector" is too long. I think "matchSingle" is too long. I think "select" and "match" are fine. It doesn't matter what the words actually are. I think "aaaaa" is fine too (though it wouldn't be my first choice). As Maciej points out, we just have to make sure we don't pick a name that makes everyone just alias the method to $ or $$ or something equivalent. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 15 December 2006 06:58:21 UTC