Re: Naming for custom/specialized extended attributes? from Cameron McCormack on 2009-10-08 (public-script-coord@w3.org from October to December 2009)

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 22:04:53 -0700
To: Dimitry Golubovsky <golubovsky@gmail.com>
Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <20091008050453.GC12717@wok.mcc.id.au>

Dimitry Golubovsky:
> Not sure if this was discussed here earlier:
> 
> if I need to define extended attributes specific to a certain language
> binding for WebIDL (neither ECMAscript nor Java*) and meaningless for
> any other language binding, is there any rule to name them so future
> implementations of WebIDL tools not specific to my language will just
> silently ignore them without conflict?

Seems like it would be a good idea to suggest a naming convention in the
spec (e.g. like CSS does with vendor prefixes).

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/

Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 05:05:31 UTC