- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:48:32 -0700
- To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Devdatta Akhawe <dev.akhawe@gmail.com>, Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Thanks for all your input. 1) I've renamed getParameterByName to getParameter and getAllParametersByName to getParameterAll. 2) I've added two flavors of appendParameter. The first flavor takes a DOMString for a value and appends a single parameter. The second flavor takes an array of DOMStrings and appends one parameter for each array. This seemed better than using a variable number of arguments. 3) I've added a clearParameter method. Defining these methods required some low-level URL manipulation that's not actually defined anywhere (AFAIK), so I've added a reference to my work-in-progress draft about parsing and canonicalizing URLs. Adam On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: > appendParameter/clearParameter seems fine to me. > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: >> > Ok. I'm sold on having an API for constructing query parameters. >> > Thoughts on what it should look like? Here's what jQuery does: >> > >> > http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.get/ >> > >> > Essentially, you supply a JSON object containing the parameters. They >> > also have some magical syntax for specifying multiple instances of the >> > same parameter name. I like the easy of supplying a JSON object, but >> > I'm not in love with the magical syntax. An alternative is to use two >> > APIs, like we current have for reading the parameter values. >> >> jQuery's syntax isn't magical - the example they give using the query >> param name of 'choices[]' is doing that because PHP requires a [] at >> the end of the query param name to signal it that you want multiple >> values. It's opaque, though - you could just as easily have left off >> the '[]' and it would have worked the same. >> >> The switch is just whether you pass an array or a string (maybe they >> support numbers too?). >> >> I recommend the method be called append*, so you can use it both for >> first sets and later additions (this is particularly useful if you're >> just looping through some data). This obviously would then need a >> clear functionality as well. >> >> ~TJ >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 08:14:25 UTC