W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Naming for custom/specialized extended attributes?

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:51:42 -0700
Cc: Dimitry Golubovsky <golubovsky@gmail.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-id: <1FE225C7-2B9B-45A5-AC99-0AB14F02557C@apple.com>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>

On Oct 7, 2009, at 10:04 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:

> Dimitry Golubovsky:
>> Not sure if this was discussed here earlier:
>>
>> if I need to define extended attributes specific to a certain  
>> language
>> binding for WebIDL (neither ECMAscript nor Java*) and meaningless for
>> any other language binding, is there any rule to name them so future
>> implementations of WebIDL tools not specific to my language will just
>> silently ignore them without conflict?
>
> Seems like it would be a good idea to suggest a naming convention in  
> the
> spec (e.g. like CSS does with vendor prefixes).

Sounds like a good idea. WebKit will likely add some extended  
attributes for Objective-C (and possibly for QObject and GObject  
bindings) to Web IDL once we adopt it, and it would be good to have a  
convention.

  - Maciej
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 05:52:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:02 UTC