- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:30:03 +0200
- To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:19:46 +0200, Lachlan Hunt
<lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
> I like match() too because it's much shorter than
> getElementsBySelector(),
Right... :-)
> but I think the fact that it only returns a single node is confusing and
> that, in most cases, authors would want the whole collection, not just
> the first match. I think it would be better if the methods were:
>
> [...]
In that case you have this issue:
* match("foo")[0] (when match() would return a list)
* matchOne("foo")
* matchFirst("foo")
The shortest name should represent the most efficient method imho.
> What's wrong with using:
>
> var selectorMatches = document.matchAll('#bleh elm3', resolver);
>
> There may still be use cases for matching a sub tree, so it may be worth
> extending the Element interface too, but all the ones I can think of can
> be handled by simply writing a more specific selector.
Yeah, except when you get a random element back like event.target. And
even in that case you can probably give the event some random ID in most
cases but it's not really flexible.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2006 13:30:14 UTC