- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:35:35 -0700
- To: arun@mozilla.com
- Cc: Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 6/28/10 3:41 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote: >> >> 28.06.2010, в 15:37, Adam Barth написал(а): >> >>> I believe Alexey Proskuryakov has strong feelings on this topic. >> >> >> I e-mailed public-webapps not long ago, but that seems to have gone >> unnoticed, >> <http://www.mail-archive.com/public-webapps@w3.org/msg09236.html>. > > Alexey: sorry if I overlooked responding to your original note. FWIW, we > should separate URL/url and FileReader/BlobReader, since they are separate > discussions. > > 1. URL vs. url: I agree that consistency is desirable, but almost *all* > attributes *except constants* are expressed as lower case. URL/url is an > exception (I'm very happy we gave up the *far* more confusing URN/urn -- I'm > sorry I even considered it ;-)). I don't have a very strong opinion, so > I'll defer to those that do, but to your point, Firefox also does ship > 'document.URL' which seems likely the most common use of this property > amongst authors. We don't *also* ship 'document.url.' My recollection is > that Hixie changed a few things a while ago already, but I can't find a > reference in email. This is bikeshedding to a certain extent, since > developers will defer to documentation about attribute names. Given that a > change has *already* occurred, do you *really* feel strongly enough to > protest the change? Right, this is completely orthogonal to the FileReader/BlobReader naming issue. > 2. FileReader/BlobReader: I have a stronger opinion on this subject. Blob > hasn't really "landed" on the web in a big way yet. Firefox's > implementation doesn't do Blob, although we do File. While renaming the > object BlobReader does account for the fact that all the arguments to the > read methods are Blob arguments, there hasn't been too much discussion of > what the "majority use case" will be. By "majority use case" I mean, what > the object will be *mostly* used for. *Right now* Jonas points out that the > majority use case is with Files. A good reason to rename it is if use cases > emerge that are so compelling that manipulating Blob data generally might be > just as desirable as manipulating user-selected files from the underlying > file system. Can you or anyone cite such use cases? > > In either case, we're agitating on behalf of web developers. Having some > weigh in would be useful in an implementor's bike-shedathon :-) Would definitely like to hear developer feedback. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 00:36:35 UTC