On Jul 2, 2007, at 3:50 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:17:40 +0200, Doug Schepers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi-
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I don't have a strong objection either way, but I think the case
against Lachy's original names (selectElement, etc) has been laid
out more clearly than the case against cssQuery. I think
selectorQuery (as suggested in follow-ups) would also be ok.
I think that the chief problem with cssQuery*() for me is that it
is rather confusing. Such a name would indicate functionality
related to CSS (that is, something presentational or style-
oriented), rather than the accident of a historical relationship.
It totally fails the criteria of being functionally descriptive,
which selectElement() meets (other merits notwithstanding); this
is a point on which I think we can build consensus and compromise
(and hopefully a speedy resolution).
Similarly, with selectorQuery() (which is better), you lose the
verby "action word" of the existing naming convention (getAByB);
selectorQuery sounds more like a property than a method.
Frankly, I'm not a fan of any of the present crop of names, but in
the interest of keeping forward momentum, I least object to what
we currently have, selectElement*().
Thank you Doug for so eloquently stating the details of my
objection. As it happens, I agree with you that I would rather move
forward with the consensus on selectElement*, if we establish that,
than keep chasing round for new names.
I really think the confusability of this with selectNodes/
selectSingleNode is a significant problem. matchSelector or
querySelector doesn't have this problem, and also doesn't have the
problems of cssQuery (slightly inaccurate mention of css, doesn't
sound like a verb phrase).
But I won't stand in the way of an editorial decision on this one.
Regards,
Maciej
