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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:34 UTC