W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2010

[whatwg] [html5] r5307 - [giow] (0) use vendor--feature instead of _vendor-feature since Apple engineers [...]

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:40:20 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTik1jvfE=_ucFqHSdLvcvMVBZ_aupjm9-XT57_3Y@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:32:33 +0200, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
>>> Hmm, good point. Any other suggestions?
>> Mozilla has already added a number of extensions using just a "moz" prefix
>> ... e.g. mozInnerScreenX, mozPaintCount, mozRequestAnimationFrame.
>> Webkit has added extensions using a "webkit" prefx ... e.g.
>> webkitDisplayingFullscreen.
>> In theory I guess that pattern could conflict with new features. But in
>> practice it doesn't seem likely unless new engines enter the market and
>> choose prefixes poorly. (I.e., don't choose a prefix that matches an
>> English verb or noun.)
> Note that this is for element attributes, not interface members. Having said
> that, vendor-name (i.e. a single dash) is probably sufficient. It seems
> highly unlikely we will ever use webkit-, ms-, o-, gecko- as an attribute
> name. In fact, iirc we follow the policy that new attribute names will not
> have hyphens in them, unless it is for some kind of pattern (like data-).

Is this supposed to be a general policy?  We couldn't determine
whether to go with or without dashes when naming an attribute in the
bidi meeting a few months ago - current practice seems to go both
ways, from a trawl of the attribute index.

Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 11:40:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:00 UTC