- From: Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:16:20 +0200
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:53:06 +0200, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: > On Aug 9, 2012, at 02:28 , Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> On 8/8/12 8:23 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >>> If we're telling people to use that pattern, we might as well just not >>> prefix the API in the first place because that pattern just tells the >>> web developers to unilaterally unprefix the API themselves. >> >> Yep. The only benefit of the prefixing at that point is to maybe mark >> the API as experimental, if any web developers pay attention. Which I >> doubt. > > Trying to evangelise that something is experimental is unlikely to > succeed. But when trying out a new API people do look at the console a > lot (you tend to have to :). It might be useful to emit a warning upon > the first usage of an experimental interface, of the kind "You are using > WormholeTeleportation which is an experimental API and may change > radically at any time. You have been warned." Actually, you should say "*will* change, and *will*stop*working* after some time. If you don't update your code, we will break it". cheers -- Chaals - standards declaimer
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 13:16:58 UTC