- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:20:05 +0100
- To: "Web APIs WG \(public\)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
"Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net> > Of course, allowing vendors to use member names as they please does not > prevent this is in way, However requiring vendors to use names such as VendorFoo Requires the above code - > and not doing the above is what us gives names > like .weWouldHaveLikedFooButEveryBrowserDoesTheirOwnSillyThingWithFoo(). I can't think of a single example of this, could you provide some. There are nearly always plenty of naming options - innerText and textContent for example, both are fine, and the WG's decision to use the later was in no way harmed by the existence of the former. About the only overly verbose method I can thing from DOM is Document.normalizeDocument() - which is rather redundant... but I don't think that was down to vendors, and is hardly in the same class as the above. > Poorly written code fragments such as the one above don't bring this > discussion forward much. Please provide example code that is not poorly written that achieves the same as the previous example. (There are some minor syntactical issues that I might prefer for clarity, and the opera check should be first if it really does create stubs... but otherwise it seems basically appropriate.) Cheers, Jim.
Received on Saturday, 22 April 2006 09:21:55 UTC