- From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:44:13 -0800
- To: Dave Massy <Dave.Massy@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Web API public <public-webapi@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFCD0A8B08.744F9E3A-ON88257249.0071C797-88257249.0071E978@us.ibm.com>
I agree with the Microsoft folks on this thread. Jon Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com> Web Architect, Emerging Technologies IBM, Menlo Park, CA Mobile: +1-650-926-5865 Dave Massy <Dave.Massy@micro soft.com> To Sent by: Charles McCathieNevile public-webapi-req <chaals@opera.com>, Web API public uest@w3.org <public-webapi@w3.org> cc Chris Wilson 12/19/2006 12:35 <chris.wilson@microsoft.com>, Anne PM van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Tina Duff <tinad@microsoft.com> Subject RE: Selectors API naming 1. Other Issues. It'd be great to have more detail and scenario on NSResolver. It appears to allow elements within the document to have different prefixes than things in the style sheet. For example if we map html as the prefix for XHTML in our document then we’d write it like: <html:table><html:tr><html:td></html:td></html:tr></html:table> But then we can write a selector such as: “h|table > h|tr > h|td” With a NSResolver that maps h to the same namespace as the html in the primary document. This seems potentially confusing. As I mentioned previously a more complete example of staticNodeList usage would also be appreciated. 2. Naming getElementBySelector/getElementsBySelector is the only proposal we think is acceptable. match/matchAll is not appropriate for a specific DOM method and matchSelector/matchAllSelectors isn't really much of an improvement. I'm concerned the group appears to believe naming is not important based on the belief that there is no such thing as the perfect name. While it is probably true that there is no such thing as a perfect name we have to think about the lives of web developers and the challenges they face. For these people consistent naming helps them find their way around the APIs and have some idea of what to expect from them. Members of this group may be fine with naming something xabcdexy() but I'm not sure that this group is really representative of the average web developer. I'm more than familiar with "shipping is a feature" :) but shipping the right thing at the right quality level is also important. We do believe the functionality outlined in this spec is useful and want it to move forward as quickly as it can. However we also want to ensure it is clear, easy to use and easy to understand. Thanks -Dave -----Original Message----- From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:chaals@opera.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 8:52 AM To: Web API public Cc: Chris Wilson; Dave Massy; Anne van Kesteren Subject: Re: Selectors API naming OK folks, Let's get this in perspective. We are trying to publish this document as a last call, and get on with the dozen other documents we are meant to get done in the next year. So I have two questions I would like answers on: 1. Does anyone see any other issue in the current draft that should be fixed? 2. For the following options, do you consider the names "fine", "not great but acceptable", or "unacceptable"? getElementBySelector/getElementsBySelector match/matchAll matchSelector/matchAllSelectors If and Only If you consider all 3 names are so bad as to be unacceptable, please propose an alternative. While getting naming perfect is a great thing, I don't know of it ever being done before. "Shipping is a feature", as a friend who was a product manager at a Redmond-based software company used to remind me, and if we can't get nomenclative perfection then I suggest we at least enhance the "shipping" side of our feature list... cheers Chaals (wearing a slightly ill-fitting chair's hat) -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk chaals@opera.com Try Opera 9 now! http://opera.com
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: pic29237.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2006 20:44:45 UTC