- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:58:25 +0100
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:30:54 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Mar/0066.html >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Apr/0009.html >> I read those. That was long after this was initially discussed though. >> And also around the time I stopped being the active editor of the >> specification. > > Er, indeed. Those seem to be discussion of ElementTraversal. Oops. > I was pretty sure I'd raised the same issue with Selectors API, but the > W3C list search is crappy enough that I can't find the posts... In > fact, the only thread on the matter I can find is the "ACTION-87: > Selectors API" thread (announcing that you plan to start working on the > spec at) at > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2006Feb/0108.html>. > Was that it? Yeah, I think http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2006Feb/0129.html gives the basic argument. Still sounds reasonable today although it may not apply to all implementations. > In any case, the static implementation was considerably more complicated > in Gecko, I suspect performance is a wash in most cases, though it's > easy to create examples that are much faster with one or the other > approach. I personally would have preferred a live API. Too late now though. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 15:15:45 UTC