Hi-
Just to alleviate any confusion, Bjoern is referring to the Selectors
API spec [1] (not "CSS Query API", which is not the name of a WebAPI
spec).
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-api/
Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Staff Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
Hi,
The WebAPI Working Group is considering to conduct a poll to finally
put the method naming issue in the CSS Query API specification to rest;
Charles asked us to propose alternatives to selectElement/selectAllEle-
ments. To this end, I would like to propose using two [1] of
selectorQuery(...) / .selectorQueryAll(...) / .selectorQueryOne(...)
instead. I believe these names offer the following benefits:
* This is the only set of names where I know of no working
group member with a good reason to strongly dislike them.
* Many working group members have indicated these names work
for them. Even Anne!
* They are lexically distant from the selectNodes and select-
SingleNode XPath methods that serve a very similar purpose.
* They are lexically distant from DOM Range manipulation
methods like DOM T&R's .selectNode, Dojo's .selectElement
* They are quite unlikely to clash with other future DOM
methods and attributes designed for other purposes.
* In particular, DOM attributes that reflect XML attributes;
selectElement='' is much more likely than selectorQuery='',
c.f. SVG's targetElement='...'
* They are just as long as the .select(All)Element(s) names.
I understand somebody has to make the same proposal (or second this
one) for it to be considered; if you think these names should be
considered, or even think these would be better than selectElement,
you are very welcome to do that.
[1] There have been arguments that the shorter name should return a
single element so authors write possibly more efficient code,
and that the shorter name should return many elements because
that is required more often and saves a few keystrokes. I think
this is out of scope of the proposal and should be a separate
question in the poll, if we are going to conduct one.
Thanks,
--
