- From: Erik Arvidsson <erik.arvidsson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:52:34 -0800
- To: "Christophe Jolif" <cjolif@ilog.fr>
- Cc: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Dojo changed this to dodo.query, see http://blog.dojotoolkit.org/2007/02/04/dojoquery-a-css-query-engine-for-dojo On 2/6/07, Christophe Jolif <cjolif@ilog.fr> wrote: > > 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? > > +1 > > And I notice dojo has a > > dojo.getElementsByClass function, so it looks like very similar to the > current naming for a similar functionality in existing widespread > toolkit out there. > > -- > Christophe > > > -- erik
Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 05:02:12 UTC