- From: Christophe Jolif <cjolif@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:07:57 +0200
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- CC: Travis Leithead <travil@windows.microsoft.com>, public-webapi@w3.org, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Hi Charles & everyone, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:56:59 +0200, Travis Leithead > <travil@windows.microsoft.com> 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). A small comment on the decision about the naming. Just to be 100% clear: this comment is not meant be an objection, indeed the last thing I want is to delay one more time the publication. However as I didn't participate in the pool (partly because I was away, but also because I didn't want to break a possible consensus) let me re-iterate my opinion on this. In terms of API you have to design them not only with the "standartitas" or "web gurus" in mind, but for a world of developers which includes: - people that use DOM APIs in other languages than JavaScript (DOM API are for example part of the Java platform) - people that do not have English as native language And at least for those two categories (that I'm part of) it seems to me a getElementsBySelector() method would have been clearer than the other options. Thanks for listening! -- Christophe
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 08:08:49 UTC