- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:22:30 -0700
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: public-webapi <public-webapi@w3.org>
Hi Lachlan, On Jun 22, 2007, at 10:23 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > *Conclusion* > > After carefully considering all of these reasons, I have update the > spec to use selectElement() and selectAllElements(), based on the > arguments given above. > > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-api/ > Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=UTF-8 > I can live with your suggested names, however, I think cssQuery() / cssQueryAll() or cssQueryOne() / cssQuery() might be a better compromise choice. Arguments against cssQuery: - Selectors are not just called "Selectors", not "CSS Selectors", and using "css" in the API may lead people to think selectors are only for CSS Arguments for cssQuery: - Significantly shorter than selectElement() - Already the name used by some JS implementations of the spec's functionality - Authors often informally refer to this kind of feature as a "CSS query API" - In practice, the vast majority of the time selectors are used in conjunction with CSS Arguments for selectElement: - Similar to the word "Selector" Arguments against selectElement: - Longer than cssQuery - Very easily confusable with XPath selectSingleNode/selectNodes which are actively used in web content (enough that we implemented XPath in WebKit, and we include those methods) - Very easily confusable with the UI operation of text selection, but are actually totally unrelated to, say window.selection For me the bottom line is that while cssQuery may be somewhat imprecise, it is at the very least not ambiguous or confusable with very different operations. I think the desire to stop propagating an already common and relatively harmless misconception is outweighed by the potential for genuine confusion. I hope you will consider these arguments, as well as Bjoern's objection, but I'm happy to leave the decision to you, as long as the name does not end up outrageously long. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 08:22:41 UTC