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