- From: <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:41:25 +0100
- To: <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On 7th Jan 2010 at 5:09pm, Stewart Brodie wrote: > > [for reference] > > > 1. navigator.device.dahut.graze() > > > 2. navigator.device.dahutGraze() > > > 3. navigator.device.graze() > > > 4. navigator.dahut.graze() > > I consider option 4 to be the worst option of all. Options 1 > and 4 are actually the same except for the navigator > pollution issue, but I think that that would be a serious > mistake, for no good reason. I also believe option 1 is the best approach based on the reduced pollution of the navigator object. However I have some doubts about 'device' being the suitable naming of this sub-interface. I'd prefer any one of the following: navigator.api.dahut.graze() navigator.service.dahut.graze() navigator.remote.dahut.graze() navigator.ext.dahut.graze() I have no particular preference on one of these four names...just that they may be more suitable than navigator.device.dahut.graze(). Thanks, Richard ********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ********************************
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 11:42:01 UTC