Maybe now would be a good time to establish a sort of reserved naming
convention for standard DOM interfaces - something like w3cPerformance?
Doesn't really roll off the tongue but it's less likely to collide and
pretty clear that it's the standardized interface.
-Pat
On 1/7/2011 3:13 AM, Zhiheng Wang wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>
> 2011/1/5 Anderson Quach <aquach@microsoft.com
> <mailto:aquach@microsoft.com>>:
> > Hi Jonas,
> >
> > You've pointed out a valid theoretical coding pattern that would
> potentially have compatibility issues. Through the research tools
> that we have collectively in this working group, we found that all
> of the patterns involving the performance namespace used the
> initial declaration: var performance.
> >
> > Using different namespaces like "pagePerformance" or
> "performanceMetrics" does not eliminate the problem altogether. We
> have decided to continue to use the performance namespace as it is
> suitable and intuitive for developers when this working group adds
> additional attributes / metrics.
>
> This doesn't make sense. Why is the litmus test "eliminate the problem
> altogether"? If something significantly reduces the problem then
> surely it's an improvement worth considering, no?
>
> You still haven't answered the question from my previous email:
>
> Is there a reason the property couldn't be named something with a
> smaller risk of collisions, such as "pagePerformance" or
> "performanceMetrics".
>
>
> This sounds like a plan to me as well...
>
> cheers,
> Zhiheng
>
>
> / Jonas
>
>