- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 00:32:29 +0200
- To: "'Rick Byers'" <rbyers@chromium.org>, "'Brian Kardell'" <bkardell@gmail.com>
- CC: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "'Paul Irish'" <paul.irish@gmail.com>, <public-houdini@w3.org>
> I wonder if we're really missing language namespacing features here? > In many other modern languages the (compiled) code contains the > fully qualified names (often including version numbers). > > When developers can type short names they mostly don't mind that their > true API names are long. People can use a preprocessor, which will map "nice names" to fully qualified form. Soon, everyone will use preprocessors. Also, two dashes aren't that much (and help make it clear what's native and what's not, which isn't that bad). > Anyway that can always come later. > What bothers me here is that the browser (and/or the W3C) is in this uniquely > privileged position of allocating the only "nice" names (and framework / app > developers will probably always fight with us over the namespace). > > If we're serious about avoiding name collisions while also empowering web > developers, perhaps all new W3C-defined APIs should start with a prefix > (-w3c-)? You should be sending more mails to the www-style mailing list, you've the perfect mindset for www-style :-)
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2015 22:32:55 UTC