- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 04:11:03 -0800
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Feb 5, 2007, at 10:18 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:41:10 +0530, Anne van Kesteren > <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > >> >> Given the input from Björn I suppose there's no real need for a >> method >> that returns a single element node (assuming implementations make >> that >> optimization). Given that, I propose we rename .getAll() to >> .getElementsBySelector() and drop .get() (on both Document and >> Element). >> >> One advantage is that it's consistent with the naming people >> already use >> for custom written functions that have this functionality. In >> theory it's >> also not harder to type than .getElementsByTagName(). The only >> thing that >> makes it differ from the other getElementsBy* method(s) is that it >> doesn't >> return a live NodeList. I don't see that as a major problem. >> >> If there are no strong objections I'll implement this in the >> specification. > > Not having heard strong objections, and having had support for > getElementsBySelector() that is at least as strong as anything > else, I think (with > my chair's hat) this can be taken as the current resolution of the > naming debate. > > Which would also resolve ISSUE-110. > > Any objections? I stated my objection already in my message on this thread from January 28th. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 12:11:31 UTC