W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: [IndexedDB] Problems unprefixing IndexedDB

From: Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:16:20 +0200
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wiry5ieg22x22q@chaals>
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:53:06 +0200, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> On Aug 9, 2012, at 02:28 , Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 8/8/12 8:23 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> If we're telling people to use that pattern, we might as well just not
>>> prefix the API in the first place because that pattern just tells the
>>> web developers to unilaterally unprefix the API themselves.
>>
>> Yep.  The only benefit of the prefixing at that point is to maybe mark  
>> the API as experimental, if any web developers pay attention.  Which I  
>> doubt.
>
> Trying to evangelise that something is experimental is unlikely to  
> succeed. But when trying out a new API people do look at the console a  
> lot (you tend to have to :). It might be useful to emit a warning upon  
> the first usage of an experimental interface, of the kind "You are using  
> WormholeTeleportation which is an experimental API and may change  
> radically at any time. You have been warned."

Actually, you should say "*will* change, and *will*stop*working* after  
some time. If you don't update your code, we will break it".

cheers

-- 
Chaals - standards declaimer
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 13:16:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:54 GMT