- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:00:39 -0800
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: Dave Massy <Dave.Massy@microsoft.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapi@w3.org
On Dec 14, 2006, at 10:50 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:58:16 +0530, Maciej Stachowiak > <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > >> On Dec 13, 2006, at 9:05 AM, Dave Massy wrote: >> >>> Moving to public-webapi@w3.org >>> >>> I don't think we are tied to a particular name for this, I think >>> getElementsByGroupOfSelectors might be a little excessive :) >>> However we'd just like the name to more clearly reflect the >>> functionality rather than a generic sounding matchAll() which >>> isn't really intended for generic use. It's our belief that it is >>> important for names to reflect what they do where possible. >>> Having a short name might save us all a few keystrokes but it is >>> less clear to developers what the call is doing and can create >>> bigger problems. >> >> I think a short but clear name would be select(). Unfortunately >> that is taken by Microsoft's nonstandard XPath API. match() seems >> like a decent next-best choice. The idea is to make this a common >> idiom with a convenient name so people don't have to go to crazy >> lengths like making $() or $$() functions to avoid using it. > > 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... I can live with the current names in the document. Cheers, Maciej
Received on Friday, 15 December 2006 07:01:09 UTC