W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: XMLHttpRequest.responseBlob

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>
Message-ID: <op.vbyq5d1uidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
> 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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:38 GMT