On 12/24/06, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:26:51 +0100, Martijn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> - It's too generic. Instead of matchAll, it could have been named
> getAll, collectAll, etc.
I would be fine with get() and getAll() on document (and element). I agree
that they would make more sense.
Well, my point was actually that they don't make sense, since it could
mean anything.
So, I would not be happy with using those names.
> - It is inconsistent with current naming. Isn't there a need/desire
> for the w3c to be consistent with the naming of new methods regarding
> older specs?
Not if the old methods effectively become obsolete. True enough, they
return a live NodeList and so might be useful for some use cases but I
don't think that goes for the majority if you see the usage of such
methods on the web.
So the plan of matchAll is to make getElementById and
getElementsByTagName effectively obsolete? And that's why a different
sort of name is justified?
Regards,
Martijn
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
--
Martijn Wargers
Help Mozilla!
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/qa/
http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/
