On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:33:49 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/26/07, Charles McCathieNevile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:05:13 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Roughly speaking, the rationale was that nobody except Anne felt get was
good,
there was little support for match and strong resistance, and then wegot
getElementBySelectors as the only obvious choice for the single element
method -
which everyone except Anne was happy with.
An 's' on the end too? This is the worst name for an API I have seen
in a long time,
How about getElementByGroupOfSelectors (which is slightly more accurate)?
and I agree with all of Hixie's comments on the
process. This is not an effective way to make changes to the Web.
Sitting around waiting for some magical consensus to emerge where it just
clearly isn't is not an effective way to make changes either. It would be
more
efficient to simply wait and see what Microsoft implements.
Since I have the reponsibility for getting this group to finish its work
in a
particular timeframe, I made a decision to find some kind of resolution in
line
with the process under which we are working. Which happens to offer the
opportunity to discuss with Microsoft in advance, and with various other
implementors, and see if they are prepared to agree to something.
Actually, I don't think the name is particularly elegant. Nor especially
horrible. But if it gets the spec published, rather than indefinitely
extend the
last two months of having it sit around going nowhere, I can live with it.
And
the process that led to it which as I have said will see it happily
replaced if
a proposal is made that actually does show consensus).
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Try Opera 9.1 http://opera.com
