* Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >Opera does not like the cssQuery names and prefers the names that were >suggested in Lachy's draft. > >I recall strong objection to names which suggested this was about CSS in >the past (but maybe it was only Anne objecting) on the basis that this >isn't about CSS but selectors. > >So, Bjoern, Maciej, do you object to closing the issue with the names >Lachy proposed in his draft, or are you just tossing in another idea in >case it gets stronger consensus?
As I said on member-webapi, I am happy to answer that once I know who objects to the cssQuery names and why, so you and the rest of the Working Group can decide whether objections to the cssQuery names are stronger than to the names Lachlan proposed, which we need to know in order to pick the solution that generates the weakest objections, as required by the W3C Process. So far I only know Opera maybe objects, and the reason you cite seems a marketing concern to me, which would be addressed by calling them .selectorQuery(...) and .selectorQueryAll(...) instead, which would happen to be as long as the names Lachlan proposed and address Ian's concern that the single element version gets the shorter name, while they would be a lot longer overall and inconsistent with practise. Not knowing why Opera maybe objects to cssQuery and selectorQuery, I don't think we have sufficient information to re-close the issue. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
