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

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

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:34:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-32Fn3wd=+m2Y-+rP9dQOzJrTjp=Zy=xbFkGcY3LjiYUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.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 Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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)?
>

RTC works for me. While RTC.XXXX is slightly nicer, not sure it's worth
spending time on given the established precedent.
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 01:35:03 UTC

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