- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 21:25:01 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
>
> A getElementsByCSSSelector IMO would be great and introduces minimal
> plus burden on browsers -- they have CSS selector code anyways.
>
> It's very unfriendly that I can do magic with CSS2/3 selectors and then
> I need to translate them myself if I want to change them on-the-fly.
You may find this specification to be of interest:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/selectors-api/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Dean Edwards wrote:
> > >
> > > Personally, I prefer a comma delimited list. Passing an array seems
> > > yukky.
> >
> > Really? I always thought the comma-separated argument to window.open()
> > was one of the ugliest APIs ever...
>
> This isn't the same thing. We are faking varargs so whatever we do is
> going to look a bit ugly. Nine times out of ten this method will be
> called with one argument:
>
> var menus = document.getElementsByClassName("menu");
>
> That is much more intuitive for the most common case.
True.
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> Why not allow a string in the single class name case, but require an
> array for multiple class names?
>
> Alternatively, we could make it more obvious that it takes an array by
> calling it document.getElementsByClassNames(["...", "..."]); This gives
> a little hint, and is a more accurate description of what the function
> does.
Also true...
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> I think this hasn't been suggested before. Perhaps the method should
> accept a DOMTokenString as argument instead of an array. This allows
> things like ele.getElementsByClassName(ele.className) etc. The only
> problem is how to get a DOMTokenString without first getting .className
> from somewhere. Perhaps it should be a constructor as well. 'x = new
> DOMTokenString("aaa bbb")'
We could, though that's far more awkward.
> * The examples use a mix of accepting arrays and strings. This should be
> fixed I assume.
Fixed.
> * In "HTML, XHTML, SVG and MathML elements" you can drop XHTML as it's
> clearly defined in the specification what HTML elements means.
Ok.
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> Hixie, the title attribute of the remove(token) definition says
> dom-tokenstring-add rather than dom-tokenstring-remove...
Fixed.
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Robert Sayre wrote:
>
> I landed support for this on the Mozilla trunk, and it will appear in
> upcoming Firefox alphas and betas. The array argument turned out to be
> quite a pain to implement, so we cut it. If other implementors feel it's
> worth it, we can put that support back in.
Ok. I've changed the spec to use a space-separated list.
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
> It could be defined to accept either a space separated string or an
> array. Using the [Overloads] extended attributed defined in the Language
> Bindings for DOM Specifications draft [1], it could be defined like
> this:
>
> NodeList getElementsByClassName(in DOMString classNames);
> [Overloads=getElementsByClassName]
> NodeList getElementsByClassNameArray(in DOMString[] classNames);
>
> For ECMAScript, that effectively means that getElementsByClassName() can
> be called with either a space separated string of class names or an
> array.
I've dropped the array form altogether.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> I agree with Simon here. Allowing arrays to be passed in doesn't add any
> extra value and complicates the implementation significantly. I think
> that the by far most common case is going to be passing a single class
> name, so adding multiple ways of passing multiple class names seems like
> overkill.
Agreed.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Dan Dorman wrote:
>
> Granted, the most common case will indeed be asking for a single class
> name. But, if we're going to the trouble of accepting multiple class
> names, it seems shortsighted to restrict the parameter for the
> multi-class case to a space-separated string, which is really just a
> kludgey way of representing a list (or array).
Agreed as well, but implementation feedback seems to be that accepting an
array is more expensive than it's worth.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 8 October 2007 14:25:01 UTC