- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 12:50:24 -0800
- To: Anderson Quach <aquach@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>, Sigbjørn Vik <sigbjorn@opera.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
2011/1/5 Anderson Quach <aquach@microsoft.com>: > Hi Jonas, > > You've pointed out a valid theoretical coding pattern that would potentially have compatibility issues. Through the research tools that we have collectively in this working group, we found that all of the patterns involving the performance namespace used the initial declaration: var performance. > > Using different namespaces like "pagePerformance" or "performanceMetrics" does not eliminate the problem altogether. We have decided to continue to use the performance namespace as it is suitable and intuitive for developers when this working group adds additional attributes / metrics. This doesn't make sense. Why is the litmus test "eliminate the problem altogether"? If something significantly reduces the problem then surely it's an improvement worth considering, no? You still haven't answered the question from my previous email: Is there a reason the property couldn't be named something with a smaller risk of collisions, such as "pagePerformance" or "performanceMetrics". / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2011 21:01:46 UTC