- From: Martijn <martijn.martijn@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:55:11 +0100
- To: "Robert Sayre" <sayrer@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Dave Massy" <dave.massy@microsoft.com>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On 12/20/06, Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/20/06, Martijn <martijn.martijn@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > So would thes popular JS libraries stop using those names if > > document.getElementById was called document.id for example? > > Who can say? I can't say, but I don't think they would stop. > > > I guess that's the nice thing about getElementsBySelector. It's like > > > picking 6 names all at once. :) > > > > I don't think getElementsBySelector is picking 6 names at once at all. > > I've been doing experimental implementations of > document.getElementsBy* methods and I'm willing to guarantee that it > is effectively picking many names. I can't even remember the ones I'm > working on. The problem is that it requires JavaScript programmers to > type 22 characters before encountering characters that uniquely > identify it, and 19 characters before it's clear that the method will > return a NodeList. The JS library authors of the world seem to > understand this argument. Typing 7 character is indeed shorter than typing 22 characters, so yes, I would prefer to type 7 characters. But I think it's more important to have a function name that makes it more or less clear what it is doing and that's consistent with existing function names. > If XPath can use "evaluate"[1], I don't see what's wrong with > "matchSingle/matchAll". Well, I don't really like that name either. Regards, Martijn > -- > > Robert Sayre > > [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-XPath/xpath.html#XPathEvaluator-evaluate> > -- Martijn Wargers Help Mozilla! http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/qa/ http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 22:02:21 UTC