On 2012-06-21 15:56, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:
(12/06/20 22:26), Lachlan Hunt wrote:
On 2012-06-20 10:42, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
In other words we have the same arguments that we had five years ago,
when we settled on querySelector as the one that provoked least
objection.
...
But spending another few months arguing about it hasn't proven that we
are any wiser, nor (importantly) any closer to agreement.
This is why it should be an editorial decision, not a group vote.
While I don't think a WG vote is the right way to do, I strongly
disagree that naming of a function belongs to an editorial decision.
Changing the name of a function requires all the tests be rewritten, and
therefore it is by definition not editorial.
By editorial decision, I meant that the decision of what to name it
should be up to the editor, not that it is a minor editorial issue.
Sorry for the confusion. Fixing tests is trivial, but the name should
be decided before implementation begins and a testsuite is written anyway.
At this stage, I haven't seen any overly strong objections to the names
find/findAll anyway, so hopefully this is a non-issue.
Hopefully, this time, the group will let me, as editor, evaluate the
options and supporting rationale and make a decision based on that.
I don't know what happened when the WG decided on the poor name
"querySeletor", but from a outsider's point of view, along with the
final decision, I also care about a detailed description about why a
function name is chosen.
For example, attributing the poor "querySelector" decision to an
abstract concept of "design by committee" doesn't seem to be reasonable
and genuine. I'd rather want to see a long explanation like:
What happened last time was that I carefully reviewed the entire debate,
taking into account all arguments for and against every suggested
alternative I found at the time and posted a thorough review and
rationale for the decision I made at the end.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Jun/0077.html
This then resulted in some people in the group complaining loudly enough
because they weren't happy, mostly because it's impossible to please
everyone, leading to a vote between 6 choices, ultimately overruling me.
Anecdotally, I heard from a few web developers at the time saying they
even liked the names I'd chosen, despite them being a little long, but
were later disappointed with the result of the vote.
--
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
