- From: Arnold, Curt <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 18:48:20 -0600
- To: "'www-dom@w3.org'" <www-dom@w3.org>
>> getChildElementsByTagName: >I agree the name is misleading. It should really be called something >like getDescendantsByTagName(). Now, do we need another method for >immediate children? I personally think people are really lazy, Amen, but then they post a question on svg-developer or some other forum thinking it is a bug instead of a feature and then need to be taught how to iterate on nodes. >the cost of looking for this themselves by walking the list of children is minor >and there is little hope the implementation can do better. If the DOM was local and in-memory, I would agree, but if the DOM is out-of-process or a API for a datastore, then the difference could be pretty substantial. Also, it is a place where users who aren't concerned about portability will go use implementation specific methods like selectNode() and selectSingleNode()in MSXML. Definitely not suggesting adding calls that require an XPath implementation, but I would think an audit of the uses of selectNode() and selectSingleNode() would find that the pattern is almost always a tagName and that comparable DOM methods would be widely used. > Exceptions: > >That's an interesting idea. I'll forward that one to the WG too. >Thanks for your input! I'm not sure what the answer to that one is, but it is a pain. If you look at the NIST ECMAScript DOM 1 tests, they were trying to examine message strings and reading tea leaves to try to guess what exception was intended. Of course, logic was specific to a particular implementation (MSXML) in a particular locale (US English). It might be something that is specific to the ECMAScript binding, since it doesn't affect Java implementations.
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2001 20:49:28 UTC