- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:51:42 -0700
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: Dimitry Golubovsky <golubovsky@gmail.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org
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