W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > June 2015

Re: Naming conventions (Re: PR for adding RtpSender.transport)

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:27:40 +0200
Message-ID: <5587C6FC.8020109@alvestrand.no>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:44 UTC