W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > June 2012

Re: [ACTION-43] (sdp related objects and global namespace) - way forward

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:26:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXDYEe4aqOA-O0XCJ8R2X7gJsv5Rr5qB0ibiTxfhOe=Nw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Cc: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Anant Narayanan <anant@mozilla.com>, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 18 June 2012 13:44, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
> Anything works for me - thought the idea of prefixing things with Web in a browser seems oddly redundant but I'm perfectly happy with any decision on what the prefix is.

That, plus the weird mix of upper and lower case that I guarantee will
be a constant annoyance.  Of course, everyone remembers that it's
XMLHttpRequest, or was it XmlHTTPRequest...   Should consistency be
the goal, then I propose RtcPEeRConnectioN.

Can someone more deeply versed in the naming rules come forth with an
explanation of why these classes couldn't be moved to a namespace of
their own as Anant suggests (i.e., RTC.PeerConnection)?
Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 21:27:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:28 UTC