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

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

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:55:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4FE03060.9050307@alvestrand.no>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, 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 06/18/2012 11:26 PM, Martin Thomson 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)?
Because WebIDL doesn't have namespaces?
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 07:55:50 UTC

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