- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:27:40 +0200
- To: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
- CC: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 06/21/2015 05:05 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > On Jun 21, 2015, at 1:30 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: > >> So far, the WebRTC spec has mostly followed the Blink convention (RTC). >> Switching to the Google convention would be a major hassle, even though >> I find it more readable a lot of the time. > [BA] With respect to objects, the WebRTC spec mostly uses Google convention (e.g. It is RTCRtpSender/RTCRtpReceiver, not RTCRTPSender/RTCRTPReceiver). > >> Note: RTCDtmfSender, being a mixture, is not defensible under any of the >> conventions. > [BA] Then neither is RTCRtpSender/RTCRtpReceiver. Seems we need a convention..... or more.... the one rule I found (from 2012) is here: http://www.w3.org/TR/api-design/ it says " The rules when one of those words is an acronym are not necessarily well established — follow your instinct (or try to avoid acronyms)." I'd be happy to go with a general rule that says "we use CamelCase always, except when it's RTC, and it's the first part of the name"..... but whether DTMF is worth changing is of course an interesting question.
Received on Monday, 22 June 2015 08:28:13 UTC