- From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:30:40 -0800
- To: Dave Massy <Dave.Massy@microsoft.com>
- Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFD2DA9CD1.2F53EB3D-ON8825725F.006524CC-8825725F.0065AF71@us.ibm.com>
+1. The world seems to have survived with long names like getElementById() and getElementByTagname(). Dave's two reasons below are more important than brevity. Also, it is important to bear in mind that not all uses of the DOM are in the context of browsers (and CSS), so I think it is important that the method name somehow include the letters "Selector" or "CSS". Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com> Web Architect, Emerging Technologies IBM, Menlo Park, CA Mobile: +1-650-926-5865 Dave Massy <Dave.Massy@micro soft.com> To Sent by: <public-webapi@w3.org>, public-webapi-req <annevk@opera.com>, uest@w3.org <robin@berjon.com> cc 01/10/2007 10:14 Subject AM Re: Selectors API updates I have to agree with Robin here. The new names suggested do not address the concerns raised around the original naming in the specification. Naming should be: a) descriptive of the functionality b) in line with conventions for existing DOM APIs such as getElementbyID Looking at the feedback on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/ and Anne's blog entry at http://annevankesteren.nl/2006/12/selectors-api-naming it seems that the majority of people would agree with these principles and the suggested names based on getElementBySelector. I know not everyone is in agreement and some people wish to save keypresses but I really think we should be taking note of feedback from the majority and follow the above principles. Thanks -Dave From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:06:20 +0100 Message-Id: <A204A009-EE2B-49F8-9F34-669995057FC5@berjon.com> Cc: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org> To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> On Jan 09, 2007, at 23:08, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > I updated the Selectors API specification today and added > equivalent methods for element nodes. It didn't make much sense to > me to postpone this. > > I resolved the naming debate by going for: > > * Document.get() > * Document.getAll() > * Element.get() > * Element.getAll() > > These names are short, don't clash with autocomplete and provide a > superset of the functionality given by the other get* methods. Sorry, I don't wish to reopen the naming debate, but these really don't strike me as the ones closest to consensus (aside from being dreadful picks). I think there are a bunch of names that people don't like but can live with, these are just pure nonsense. I certainly know that while I would have dropped the ball on any number of bad options, if these stay in the draft I will request formal objection from my AC Rep. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: pic02781.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2007 18:31:36 UTC