W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > October 2010

RE: [Web Timing] Interface names

From: Anderson Quach <aquach@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:07:58 +0000
To: Tony Gentilcore <tonyg@chromium.org>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1E1FF4102DEA7A40AF9CC342044ECE5D2E21BCA1@TK5EX14MBXW603.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Thanks for catching this. I agree we should be consistent with the interface names, especially moving towards an implementation where the we can drop the vendor prefix.

The open question is that do we want to move NavigationInfo --> Navigation or keep NavigationInfo.

Proposed interface names:
Performance
NavigationInfo -or- Navigation
NavigationTiming

As for the name of the interface prototype object, on IE we believe that the WebIDL spec [1] is crucial to get right. The naming conventions of the interface prototype object should be left up to that working group.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/


From: public-web-perf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-perf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gentilcore
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:35 PM
To: public-web-perf@w3.org
Subject: [Web Timing] Interface names

Since user agents expose the interface names to the DOM, I'd like to reconsider the interface names as a whole to get a consistent scheme.

Spec              IE                                WebKit
Performance       MSPerformancePrototype            Performance
NavigationInfo    MSPerformanceNavigationPrototype  Navigation
NavigationTiming  MSPerformanceTimingPrototype      Timing

I recommend we standardize on Performance, PerformanceNavigation, and PerformanceTiming.

For every other interface I checked, IE uses a Prototype suffix, but other UAs don't use it and it isn't in any specs that I've found. So I assume that we should standardize on something without Prototype and IE will might add a Prototype suffix for internal consistency.

Thoughts?

-Tony
Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 19:08:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 December 2010 18:13:55 GMT