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.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Catch up: Speed Dial http://opera.com
