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

Ideally, we should have a hierarchical namespace to make each W3C JS standard unique. However, namespace is not supported in Javascript [1]. As the result, the RTC.PeerConnection notation introduces a short global JS name RTC, which may have more chances of name clash than RTCPeerConnection.

Li

[1] http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm


-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:55 AM
To: Martin Thomson
Cc: Cullen Jennings (fluffy); Justin Uberti; Anant Narayanan; Adam Bergkvist; Dominique Hazael-Massieux; public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: [ACTION-43] (sdp related objects and global namespace) - way forward

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 14:05:28 UTC