- From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:23:04 -0800
- To: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
- CC: Martijn <martijn.martijn@gmail.com>, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.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>
? I never claimed there were technical problems with "matchAll" or "select" either - just that they didn't fit the pattern established by the other DOM Recommendation APIs, and therefore weren't the best choice for an API that was supposed to fit in the larger scope of the web object model platform. There's no _technical_ problem with calling it "xyz()". Perhaps it's strongly worded - I consider it "polluting" an object if properties/methods/events are added on that object that might have more than one meaning and aren't clearly separated. You could make it look like document.xPath.select() and then it's clear; you could say document.selectXPath() and that's clear too. If you say document.select() it could have multiple meanings. My point about DOM L3 XPath is that it's a Note, and therefore as much of a W3C "standard" as Behavioral Extensions to CSS[1]. To become a Recommendation, it has to go through a lot more analysis by multiple parties and multiple implementations, etc. - I know it feels like this should be a quick thing to slam out, but it really does pay to think about the details of usage up front. This isn't "rename what already works" - it's "let's build something that works properly the first time out." -Chris [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/becss -----Original Message----- From: Robert Sayre [mailto:sayrer@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 1:46 PM To: Chris Wilson Cc: Martijn; Jim Ley; Ian Hickson; Dave Massy; Anne van Kesteren; Web API WG (public) Subject: Re: Selectors API naming On 12/20/06, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote: > The DOM L3 XPath specification is a Note, not a Recommendation. That's right. I haven't heard of any technical problems with that standard's document.evaluate method name. > I would expect to have the same discussion about minimalism and Looking over this thread, I have to admit I would expect the same. However, my hope is that W3C members would find better things to do than rename what already works. > polluting the document object if it were to be Proposed. I don't understand what you mean by "polluting". What impact do matchSingle and matchAll have on the ecology of the document object? All that said, maybe it would be expedient to stick with the really, really long names and standardize the shortcuts, using a method on window to turn them on. That way, older browsers that don't implement the "Quick DOM" standard could be catered to by adding a script element. -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
Received on Thursday, 21 December 2006 00:24:00 UTC