- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:33:40 +1000
- To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
- Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote: > I like your rule, which I read as "we use CamelCase, except for that RTC > thing at the beginning that we're stuck with". As in other specs, having RTC capitalised at the beginning is somewhat of a namespacing approach - "it's part of the RTC stuff". I actually think that makes it quite readable. > I'm in favor of changing DTMFSender to be DtmfSender. I don't think there > are any backwards compatibility issues with changing the type name (it's > just a search and replace in the spec and code base). While we're at it, > can we change the event objects with "RTCDTMF" to "RtcDtmf" as well? Might > as well be consistent. Wouldn't it be RTCDtmf according to the rule above? > The only change that would have some compatibility implications would be the > insertDTMF method. As much as I would like that to be insertDtmf, I'm > willing to live with it being insertDTMF. Why is a name change here so much harder? (Not that I'm worried - I'm fine to keep it.) Cheers, Silvia. > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> > wrote: >> >> 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 22:34:26 UTC