On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:56:59 +0200, Travis Leithead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Recently, a member-only vote was held to attempt (yet-again) to resolve general complaining, grumbling, etc., about the latest API names chosen for the Selectors API spec
I suppose a vote was the only fair and equitable thing to do.
Well, it seemed the last best hope to stop going around this forever.
I suppose this thread is now open to hear what the standardistas think, but personally, I'd like to just put the voted name in, and get this spec done ;)
Indeed. As chair, this is a formal announcement that the decision of the group is to use the name querySelector, and publish the last call draft with that name. (This gives the public a chance to raise any objection that they think will convince the group to open this debate and go round *AGAIN* - as W3C process requires - but means that within the group the issue is until then considered resolved by vote).
As Bjoern Hoehrmann has previously noted, W3C's process aims to consensus, and that includes, in a case where a true consensus doesn't exist, going with the option that generates the least strong objections. This is fundamentally what disqualified getElementBySelctor since members of the group thought that the length was a serious problem.
So there should shortly be a new draft with the name in it. Result highlights:
querySelector()/querySelectorAll() scored 41 getElementBySelector()/getElementListBySelector() scored 43
The rest weren't really in the race, relatively speaking. 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
