- From: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:10:31 +0100
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On 11 jan 2010, at 11:31, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >>> If we think there's a real danger of name collisions we could go the whole >>> way and prefix our names with mf- or something, but then you get ugly >>> http://example.com/video.ogg?mf-t=3 urls. My preference is that for the 1.0 >>> spec we just cross our fingers, and it if turns out we are wrong we fix >>> things with non-colliding names in the next version of the spec. >> >> The prefix idea is a good one, but how about forcing the extensions to use >> it instead of MF, just like with CSS: -foo-name. This would be applicable to >> the fragment syntax too if UAs want to experiment, so you might see e.g. >> #t=20&-o-aspect=4:3 or something if Opera wants to be able to force the >> aspect ratio like this (we don't, it's just an example). > > Interesting... we should discuss this idea of including a > "namespace"-style prefix. It makes it a bit lengthy and talkative, but > indeed easier to segment out from other name-value pairs. My suggestion is we keep this simple. At most: one non-normative paragraph somewhere, where we state "If you want to extend the name/value pairs please do so in a way that will likely not collide with other people's names (including future versions of this spec). We suggest use use something like -org-name, where org is an abbreviation of your organization." -- Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 11:11:23 UTC