Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:35:24 +0200, Jim Ley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The shortest name should represent the most efficient method imho.
Crazy notion, names should be clear, not short for efficiency.
The point was that if the more efficient one of the two actually had a
longer name, people would probably use the shorter name and just take
the first node using [0] or whatever can be used for that in their
language binding.
I agree that is a risk, though not really a huge concern. Convenience
methods are often slower than more complex syntax. Once a script gets so
slow that performance matters (which often never is the case when it
comes to web scripts) then they could switch to the more optimized methods.
All we'd need to do for this to work is to describe in the spec which
method is likely to be faster.
/ Jonas
