- From: Michael A. Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:59:40 -0500
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:20:38 -0500, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Robert O'Callahan > <robert at ocallahan.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: >>> >>> toDataURL() was named that way for consistency with toString(), which >>> seems a closer analogue here than getElementById() and friends. >> >> <bikeshed> >> But you're not really converting the form element into something >> equivalent, >> are you? That's what "to" methods usually imply, IMHO. Maybe it should >> be >> "createFormData" or "extractFormData"? >> </bikeshed> > > This was my reasoning too. > > I'm not a big fan of 'createFormData' as to me it doesn't sound like > it'll also populate the FormData with the current values. Possibly due > to the similarity with 'createElement'. 'extractFormData' sounds ok > though, though i think 'getFormData' is nicer due to its shorter name. A while ago, I mentioned this <http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-January/018097.html> as getFormData(). I still like that name. -- Michael
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 18:59:40 UTC