- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:26:14 +0200
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>, "public-webapps.w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 2012-06-20 10:42, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > In other words we have the same arguments that we had five years ago, > when we settled on querySelector as the one that provoked least objection. > ... > But spending another few months arguing about it hasn't proven that we > are any wiser, nor (importantly) any closer to agreement. This is why it should be an editorial decision, not a group vote. The least-objectionable alternative is rarely the best alternative, and trying to please everyone is a fool's errand. Hopefully, this time, the group will let me, as editor, evaluate the options and supporting rationale and make a decision based on that. Right now, that draft uses find/findAll() simply because they're the names that were used throughout the discussion that led to them being added. There are still issues to resolve, however, which I would like feedback on. In particular, is there really value in adding two distinct methods that differ only by whether they return 1 element or a collection? Resolving this issue first would help with resolving the naming issue. It should be noted that JQuery/sizzle does not use querySelector() at all, AFAICS. It only uses querySelectorAll() and sometimes switches to .getElementById() or document.body. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 14:26:48 UTC