- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:42:55 +0200
- To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- CC: "public-webapps.w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 2012-06-21 15:56, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote: > (12/06/20 22:26), Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> 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. > > While I don't think a WG vote is the right way to do, I strongly > disagree that naming of a function belongs to an editorial decision. > Changing the name of a function requires all the tests be rewritten, and > therefore it is by definition not editorial. By editorial decision, I meant that the decision of what to name it should be up to the editor, not that it is a minor editorial issue. Sorry for the confusion. Fixing tests is trivial, but the name should be decided before implementation begins and a testsuite is written anyway. At this stage, I haven't seen any overly strong objections to the names find/findAll anyway, so hopefully this is a non-issue. >> Hopefully, this time, the group will let me, as editor, evaluate the >> options and supporting rationale and make a decision based on that. > > I don't know what happened when the WG decided on the poor name > "querySeletor", but from a outsider's point of view, along with the > final decision, I also care about a detailed description about why a > function name is chosen. > > For example, attributing the poor "querySelector" decision to an > abstract concept of "design by committee" doesn't seem to be reasonable > and genuine. I'd rather want to see a long explanation like: What happened last time was that I carefully reviewed the entire debate, taking into account all arguments for and against every suggested alternative I found at the time and posted a thorough review and rationale for the decision I made at the end. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Jun/0077.html This then resulted in some people in the group complaining loudly enough because they weren't happy, mostly because it's impossible to please everyone, leading to a vote between 6 choices, ultimately overruling me. Anecdotally, I heard from a few web developers at the time saying they even liked the names I'd chosen, despite them being a little long, but were later disappointed with the result of the vote. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 14:43:34 UTC