On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:26:14 +0200, Lachlan Hunt
lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au 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
On 2012-06-20 17:46, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com wrote:
20.06.2012, 18:14, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au:
4. Support for returning elements that are not descendants of the
context object.
This feature allows a selector to be constructed such that it matches an
element anywhere in
(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
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
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:56:45 +0200, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
kennyl...@csail.mit.edu 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
(12/06/21 23:28), Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:56:45 +0200, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
kennyl...@csail.mit.edu wrote:
(12/06/20 22:26), Lachlan Hunt wrote:
The least-objectionable alternative is rarely the best alternative, and
trying to please everyone is a fool's errand.
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:19:22 +0200, Elliott Sprehn espr...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.
jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
...
This is not a good argument. qSA is used often enough, and has a long
enough name, that the name is actually a pretty significant
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
20.06.2012, 18:26, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au:
In particular, is there really value in adding two distinct methods that
differ only by whether they return 1 element or a collection? Resolving
this issue first would help with resolving the naming issue.
It should be noted that
It should be noted that JQuery/sizzle does not use querySelector() at all,
AFAICS. It only uses querySelectorAll() and sometimes switches to
.getElementById() or document.body.
I took a look at using querySelector as an optimization a while back but it
did not seem to make a significant
20.06.2012, 18:14, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au:
4. Support for returning elements that are not descendants of the
context object.
This feature allows a selector to be constructed such that it matches an
element anywhere in the tree relative to the context element. This
feature
On 6/20/12 10:52 AM, Dave Methvin wrote:
This test html is based on the
msn.com http://msn.com home page to be representative of a big
real-life document.
For what it's worth, that document has about 2200 DOM nodes. That's two
orders of magnitude smaller than big real-life documents. This
On 6/20/12 11:34 AM, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com wrote:
It's natural to suppose that searching for just _first_ matching element and
returning immediately once it's found should be much _faster_ than searching
for _all_ matching elements (be it 100 or 1000 elements) even if we need just
first
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:57:17 +0200, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
kennyl...@csail.mit.edu wrote:
(12/06/18 22:45), Simon Pieters wrote:
I think we should instead either fix the old API (if it turns out to not
Break the Web) or live with past mistake (if it turns out it does). To
find out whether it
I am very opposed to this, they do different things. Having abilities
isn't a bad thing and numerous Web sites and libraries make use of qsa, not
just because find was not available but because different APIs shapes
interesting new possibilities, different ways of looking at problems,
etc... We
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:57:17 +0200, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
kennyl...@csail.mit.edu wrote:
(12/06/18 22:45), Simon Pieters wrote:
I think we should instead either fix the old API (if it turns out to not
Break the Web) or
20.06.2012, 00:38, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:57:17 +0200, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
kennyl...@csail.mit.edu wrote:
We have lots of shipped APIs with worse names. I think we should live with
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
...
This is not a good argument. qSA is used often enough, and has a long
enough name, that the name is actually a pretty significant
misfeature. This is a pretty core API, and both it and its precursors
(12/06/18 22:45), Simon Pieters wrote:
I think we should instead either fix the old API (if it turns out to not
Break the Web) or live with past mistake (if it turns out it does). To
find out whether it Breaks the Web (and the breakage can't be evanged),
I suggest we ship the
-Original Message-
From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu [mailto:kennyl...@csail.mit.edu]
(12/06/18 22:45), Simon Pieters wrote:
I think we should instead either fix the old API (if it turns out to
not Break the Web) or live with past mistake (if it turns out it
does). To find out whether
20 matches
Mail list logo
