- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:41:57 -0800
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Jan 28, 2007, at 12:11 AM, Anne van Kesteren 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). Even with Björn's suggestion, the plural version still allocates and destroys the collection object that you don't need if you are getting a single version. Also it's more awkward to use in the case where you want a single item. I admit though that if the name ends up being longer than getElementById as currently proposed, it's less likely authors would use it in place gEBI. Regards, Maciej > > 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. > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > <http://annevankesteren.nl/> > <http://www.opera.com/> >
Received on Sunday, 28 January 2007 22:42:30 UTC