- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:13:32 +0200
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:53:12 +0200, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > >> In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-script-coord/** >> 2013JulSep/0666.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2013JulSep/0666.html>it >> was suggested that the "DOM" prefix be dropped from >> DOMRect/DOMPoint/DOMQuad etc. TC39 consensus is to avoid using prefixes, >> and JavaScript is going to introduce new names like System, Symbol, etc. >> WebIDL interface objects are exposed as configurable objects in JS, so >> user >> code can overwrite them. Also URL is introduced without prefix. >> > > Tab explained in that thread some reasons why we want to use a prefix. > > User code can overwrite WebIDL interface objects, but if for example some > user code wants to use the name Rect, it's a pain to mix that with other > code that wants to use the DOM Rect API, so name collisions still have a > cost. Yeah, so let's stick with the prefix... It's inconsistent with other things, but OK. > How are we going to settle this once and for all so it doesn't get > reopened > again? Ship it and wait until the Web depends on it? ;-) -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2013 21:14:09 UTC