Re: comments on Selectors API WD

Hi Daniel,

just expanding on some of Anne's arguments.

On Sep 29, 2006, at 09:50, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> 1. I think the title of the document is badly chosen.

The WG went through that discussion already. Unless new arguments can  
be provided than those which have already been beaten to death, I  
would really, *really* prefer we didn't have yet another discussion  
on the name of something to do with Selectors. Please.

> 2. I think it's an error to restrict this new API to the document
>    level, in particular if we have scoped stylesheets in the near
>    future. I recommend extending the API to all nodes.

I don't think we need to cram as many features as possible into v1.  
Defining the exact semantics of scoped CSS selectors can be a little  
tricky, and it clearly is the job of the CSS WG to do so. The WG  
thinks that it's simpler and safer to restrict ourselves to Document  
at first, and extend to Element (or Node) later, rather than do the  
latter now and find out later that it introduces issues with what the  
CSS WG intends to do in the area.

> 4. I really hate having two different methods for matchSingle and
>    matchAll, and I'd prefer a single method with a boolean indicating
>    if only the first result should be retrieved or all.

I think that's largely a matter of taste, isn't it?

> 5. Disruptive Innovations SARL becoming a W3C member on the 1st of
>    October, we are ready to help on this specification.

That's excellent news!

-- 
Robin Berjon
    Senior Research Scientist
    Expway, http://expway.com/

Received on Friday, 29 September 2006 18:49:59 UTC