Re: [custom elements] Improving the name of document.register()

I also agree with Ted.

I prefer 'registerElement' because I'm used to the concept of registration
wrt custom elements, but I'm not ginding any axe.

Scott


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:17 AM, piranna@gmail.com <piranna@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I have seen registerProtocolHandler() and it's being discused
>> registerServiceWorker(). I believe registerElementDefinition() or
>> registerCustomElement() could help to keep going on this path.
>>
>> Send from my Samsung Galaxy Note II
>> El 11/12/2013 21:10, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com> escribió:
>>
>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The name "register" is very generic and could mean practically anything.
>>> We need to adopt a name for document.register() that makes its purpose
>>> clear to authors looking to use custom elements or those reading someone
>>> else's code that makes use of custom elements.
>>>
>>
> I support this proposal.
>
>
>>  Here are some ideas:
>>>
>>> document.defineElement()
>>> document.declareElement()
>>> document.registerElementDefinition()
>>> document.defineCustomElement()
>>> document.declareCustomElement()
>>> document.registerCustomElementDefinition()
>>>
>>> I like document.defineCustomElement() the most, but
>>> document.defineElement() also works for me if people think
>>> document.defineCustomElement() is too long.
>>>
>>>
> I think the method should be called registerElement, for these reasons:
>
> - It's more descriptive about the purpose of the method than just
> "register."
> - It's not too verbose; it doesn't have any redundant part.
> - It's nicely parallel to registerProtocolHandler.
>
> If I had to pick from the list Ted suggested, I think defineElement is the
> best of that bunch and also an improvement over just "register". It doesn't
> line up with registerProtocolHandler, but there's some poetry to
> defineElement/createElement.
>
>
>>> Ted
>>>
>>> P.S. Sorry for the bikeshedding. I really believe we can improve the
>>> name of this function to make its purpose clear.
>>
>>
> I searched for bugs on this and found none; I expect this was discussed
> but I can't find a mail thread about it. The naming of register is
> something that's been on my mind so thanks for bringing it up.
>
> Dominic
>