- From: Martijn <martijn.martijn@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:45:20 +0100
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On 12/24/06, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:26:51 +0100, Martijn <martijn.martijn@gmail.com> > wrote: > > - It's too generic. Instead of matchAll, it could have been named > > getAll, collectAll, etc. > > I would be fine with get() and getAll() on document (and element). I agree > that they would make more sense. Well, my point was actually that they don't make sense, since it could mean anything. So, I would not be happy with using those names. > > - It is inconsistent with current naming. Isn't there a need/desire > > for the w3c to be consistent with the naming of new methods regarding > > older specs? > > Not if the old methods effectively become obsolete. True enough, they > return a live NodeList and so might be useful for some use cases but I > don't think that goes for the majority if you see the usage of such > methods on the web. So the plan of matchAll is to make getElementById and getElementsByTagName effectively obsolete? And that's why a different sort of name is justified? Regards, Martijn > Anne van Kesteren > <http://annevankesteren.nl/> > <http://www.opera.com/> > -- Martijn Wargers Help Mozilla! http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/qa/ http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Received on Sunday, 24 December 2006 15:45:33 UTC