Whoops, I meant to send this to the public list:
Begin forwarded message:
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: February 6, 2007 3:06:36 PM PST
To: Charles McCathieNevile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Web API WG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Proposal: getElementsBySelector()
On Feb 6, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:41:03 +0530, Maciej Stachowiak
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 5, 2007, at 10:18 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... Given that, I propose we rename .getAll() to
.getElementsBySelector() and drop .get() (on both Document and
Element).
...
If there are no strong objections I'll implement this in the
specification.
Not having heard strong objections, and having had support for
getElementsBySelector() that is at least as strong as anything
else, I think (with
my chair's hat) this can be taken as the current resolution of the
naming debate.
Which would also resolve ISSUE-110.
Any objections?
I stated my objection already in my message on this thread from
January 28th.
Yep. Thank you.
I mentioned this because you said you hadn't heard any strong
objections, so I wasn't sure if you missed mine.
I am trying to find out if you are one lone voice of reason
actually speaking for a multitude who didn't answer for
themselves, or just
marching to the beat of a different drum, or somewhere in between...
It would also be helpful to have an idea of how strongly you
object on each of
the points (name and having a single method).
I have no more or less problem with the name than previous name
proposals - I already made my big honkin' list of suggested shorter
names.
I do object to having a single method because it will lead to worse
performance when you really just want one element, even given
Bjoern's interesting optimization idea (which I think is a
problematic approach in its own way since it increases code
complexity, and potentially slows down DOM mutations a bit, where
the whole idea of using a StaticNodeList was to keep list access
and DOM manipulations from interfering with each other.
I think it should at least in principle be possible to implement
gEBS to be as fast as getElementById when given an id selector and
requesting one result, but I don't think that is doable with
Bjoern's design, at the very least due to the extra allocation and
also because when you look for a single element you are highly
likely to mutate it in some way and therefore make Bjoern's
proposed mutation ineffective.
Is there a major benefit to having a single method that outweighs
the performance considerations? I think we should have a better
reason for deciding this than "we feel like it".
Adding list back to Cc, I assume it was omitted by accident.
Regards,
Maciej
