W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: "keyIdentifier" Sucks

From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:01:44 +0300
Message-ID: <4AB8E6D8.1050908@helsinki.fi>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
CC: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
On 9/22/09 7:00 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
> Hi, DOM3 Events folks-
> I think key identifiers are a pretty good mechanism that will definitely
> improve the authoring experience.
> However... having typed "keyIdentifier" more times than I care to
> remember in the course of editing this spec, I can state with some
> measure of confidence that it's a terrible name.
> * It is long
> * It is camelCased
> * The word "identifier" (and its connotations of uniqueness) gives the
> immediate impression that it somehow uniquely identifies a key, that
> each key has a set value, and that there is only one key identifier per
> key.... none of which is correct. This makes it harder for people to
> understand than if it had some other name (like... monkeybuffalo or
> something).
> I am reluctant to change it because the term has been around for so long
> in earlier drafts of this spec, and because of existing implementations,
> but I really think authors would benefit from a shorter, more aptly
> descriptive name.
> I know, I know, this is bikeshedding... but this is also our best chance
> to get this right, before it is widely deployed in implementations and
> content.
> Here are some counter-proposals, in roughly descending order of my
> preference:
> 1) keyname (I'd need to come up with some other term for what I'm
> calling a "key name" in the spec, but that's fine)
I'd prefer camelCased, because many other attribute are camelCased too.
So perhaps keyName or what about just name?

> 2) keystring
> 3) keyvalue
For some reason, these don't sound good :)

> 4) keyaddress
This doesn't feel right. This would be closer to the native keyboard 
layout key location, or something.

> 5) keyid (I don't like this one for a number of reasons)
And the reasons are?
I was almost going to suggest having just id.

There could be id and location, or
keyId and keyLocation.

or s/id/name/


> 6) keypeek (joke)
> Is this a quixotic notion by someone who is too deep into the
> specification, or do other people think this is a reasonable topic for
> discussion? Either way, I'm happy to entertain other names (which would
> cover both the ".keyIdentifier" attribute and the "Key Identifiers Set"
> label).
> Regards-
> -Doug Schepers
> W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 15:02:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:15 UTC