- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:01:51 +0200
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "Darin Fisher" <darin@chromium.org>, "Web Applications Working Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010, Simon Pieters wrote: >> > > >> > > Can you change it back? We've implemented and written tests for >> > > WebSocket.URL. WebKit has implemented EventSource.URL and >> > > WebSocket.URL. >> > >> > Do you plan to implement the File API attribute as .URL also? >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0803.html > > That doesn't really answer the question. True. Obviously I would want File API to be consistent with the rest. Which we plan to implement probably depends on the result of this discussion. I asked some friends: What do you think it should be called? WebSocket.url or WebSocket.URL? A: url. I always write abbreviations in lowercase in code. B: No idea. C: url. If it's supposed to be camelCase. URL feels dumb. D: Ooh, hard. It's mixed today already. There's responseXML on XHR. URL looks better. Which would you expect if you were going to use it? A: No idea. B: URL. I don't know why, it just looks better. C: url I think. D: URL, from other languages and that it's an abbreviation. Two of them asked me what I thought myself. Me: I've argued for URL since there's document.URL. C: Well, if that's the case then it should definitely be called URL. D: So true! I didn't think of that one. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 07:02:38 UTC