Re: [w3c/FileAPI] Readonly attributes without setters? (#126)

> "respect" is an emotion; a feeling.

So many words, sorry. My feeling is simple. You can't rename file without madness. It means that **File** is not actually a file, maybe it is some kind of internal stuff, that users shouldn't touch. It means that developers that created interface doesn't care about users. Users shouldn't give any additional respect to these people, it is obvious.

> If we'd redesign this API from scratch, yeah, we'd possibly name things differently. At this point there really ins't much we can do about that. There is way too much usage out there of the existing names, so renaming isn't an option. We could add an alias or something with a different name, but that would just cause even more confusion, as now there are two names for the same thing. It is unfortunate that "historical" APIs name squat names that arguably could be used better for other concepts, but there isn't much we can do about that at this point.

Ok, I see. It will become a new legacy API. So please try to select proper terminology for future APIs, it is important. Please do more discussion with different people. If you love functional programming, please find non-functional humans and discuss terminology with them too. Thank you.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/FileAPI/issues/126#issuecomment-480943498