- From: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 11:29:09 +0900
- To: public-fx@w3.org
(2013/11/07 11:12), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > I'm fine with SyncGroup. Yeah, there's punning with "synchronous", > but if you can avoid that it's well-named - people use "sync" for > synchronizing plenty. Summarising where I think we're up to so far: * ParGroup,SeqGroup - not descriptive enough * ParallelGroup,SequenceGroup - spelling of Parallel is troublesome * SyncGroup,SequenceGroup - 'Sync' may have other meanings (but ok?) - Both start with 's' = hard to distinguish? My vote is still with SyncGroup. One more alternative (which if nothing else might just make SyncGroup seem better), is TogetherGroup. i.e. TogetherGroup and SequenceGroup and <together> and <sequence>. A bit weird I guess, not to mention long. Any more suggestions? Best regards, Brian
Received on Friday, 8 November 2013 02:29:37 UTC