Re: Official results of memeber-only vote on Selectors API name combos

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:56:59 +0200, Travis Leithead  
<> wrote:

> Recently, a member-only vote was held
> to attempt (yet-again) to resolve general complaining, grumbling, etc.,
> about the latest API names chosen for the Selectors API spec

> I suppose a vote was the only fair and equitable thing to do.

Well, it seemed the last best hope to stop going around this forever.

> I suppose
> this thread is now open to hear what the standardistas think, but
> personally, I'd like to just put the voted name in, and get this spec
> done ;)

Indeed. As chair, this is a formal announcement that the decision of the  
group is to use the name querySelector, and publish the last call draft  
with that name. (This gives the public a chance to raise any objection  
that they think will convince the group to open this debate and go round  
*AGAIN* - as W3C process requires - but means that within the group the  
issue is until then considered resolved by vote).

As Bjoern Hoehrmann has previously noted, W3C's process aims to consensus,  
and that includes, in a case where a true consensus doesn't exist, going  
with the option that generates the least strong objections. This is  
fundamentally what disqualified getElementBySelctor since members of the  
group thought that the length was a serious problem.

So there should shortly be a new draft with the name in it.

Result highlights:

> querySelector()/querySelectorAll() scored 41
> getElementBySelector()/getElementListBySelector() scored 43

The rest weren't really in the race, relatively speaking.



   Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk    Catch up: Speed Dial

Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 03:20:43 UTC