Re: [Web Timing] Interface names

Sorry I was unable to join the call yesterday. Did this get resolved? Should
be a detail that is easy to close the loop on.

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Anderson Quach <aquach@microsoft.com>wrote:

> Thanks for catching this. I agree we should be consistent with the
> interface names, especially moving towards an implementation where the we
> can drop the vendor prefix.
>
>
>
> The open question is that do we want to move NavigationInfo Ó Navigation
> or keep NavigationInfo.
>
>
>
> Proposed interface names:
>
> Performance
>
> NavigationInfo ľor- Navigation
>
> NavigationTiming
>

I like the idea of using Performance to scope the sub interfaces like you
did in the IE implementation.

What about Performance (window.performance), PerformanceNavigation
(window.performance.navigation) and PerformanceTiming
(window.performance.timing)?


>
>
> As for the name of the interface prototype object, on IE we believe that
> the WebIDL spec [1] is crucial to get right. The naming conventions of the
> interface prototype object should be left up to that working group.
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* public-web-perf-request@w3.org [mailto:
> public-web-perf-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Tony Gentilcore
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:35 PM
> *To:* public-web-perf@w3.org
> *Subject:* [Web Timing] Interface names
>
>
>
> Since user agents expose the interface names to the DOM, I'd like to
> reconsider the interface names as a whole to get a consistent scheme.
>
> Spec              IE                                WebKit
> Performance       MSPerformancePrototype            Performance
> NavigationInfo    MSPerformanceNavigationPrototype  Navigation
> NavigationTiming  MSPerformanceTimingPrototype      Timing
>
> I recommend we standardize on Performance, PerformanceNavigation, and
> PerformanceTiming.
>
>
>
> For every other interface I checked, IE uses a Prototype suffix, but other
> UAs don't use it and it isn't in any specs that I've found. So I assume that
> we should standardize on something without Prototype and IE will might add a
> Prototype suffix for internal consistency.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Tony
>

Received on Thursday, 21 October 2010 18:27:23 UTC