W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > April 2006

Re: [comment] XMLHttpRequest Object - Address Extensibility

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:20:05 +0100
Message-ID: <007901c665ed$f48db520$2402a8c0@Snufkin>
To: "Web APIs WG \(public\)" <public-webapi@w3.org>

"Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
> Of course, allowing vendors to use member names as they please does not
> prevent this is in way,

However requiring vendors to use names such as VendorFoo Requires the above 
code -

> and not doing the above is what us gives names
> like .weWouldHaveLikedFooButEveryBrowserDoesTheirOwnSillyThingWithFoo().

I can't think of a single example of this, could you provide some. There are 
nearly always plenty of naming options - innerText and textContent for 
example, both are fine, and the WG's decision to use the later was in no way 
harmed by the existence of the former.  About the only overly verbose method 
I can thing from DOM is Document.normalizeDocument() - which is rather 
redundant... but I don't think that was down to vendors, and is hardly in 
the same class as the above.

> Poorly written code fragments such as the one above don't bring this
> discussion forward much.

Please provide example code that is not poorly written that achieves the 
same as the previous example. (There are some minor syntactical issues that 
I might prefer for clarity, and the opera check should be first if it really 
does create stubs... but otherwise it seems basically appropriate.)

Cheers,

Jim. 
Received on Saturday, 22 April 2006 09:21:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:54 GMT