W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > January 2011

Re: About window.performance namespace

From: Patrick Meenan <pmeenan@webpagetest.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 06:37:21 -0500
Message-ID: <4D26FAF1.8030207@webpagetest.org>
To: Zhiheng Wang <zhihengw@google.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Anderson Quach <aquach@microsoft.com>, Sigbjørn Vik <sigbjorn@opera.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Maybe now would be a good time to establish a sort of reserved naming 
convention for standard DOM interfaces - something like w3cPerformance?  
Doesn't really roll off the tongue but it's less likely to collide and 
pretty clear that it's the standardized interface.

-Pat

On 1/7/2011 3:13 AM, Zhiheng Wang wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>
>     2011/1/5 Anderson Quach <aquach@microsoft.com
>     <mailto: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".
>
>
>    This sounds like a plan to me as well...
>
> cheers,
> Zhiheng
>
>
>     / Jonas
>
>
Received on Friday, 7 January 2011 11:37:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:29 UTC