- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:40:20 -0700
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote: > On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:32:33 +0200, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: >>> >>> Hmm, good point. Any other suggestions? >> >> Mozilla has already added a number of extensions using just a "moz" prefix >> ... e.g. mozInnerScreenX, mozPaintCount, mozRequestAnimationFrame. >> >> Webkit has added extensions using a "webkit" prefx ... e.g. >> webkitDisplayingFullscreen. >> >> In theory I guess that pattern could conflict with new features. But in >> practice it doesn't seem likely unless new engines enter the market and >> choose prefixes poorly. (I.e., don't choose a prefix that matches an >> English verb or noun.) > > Note that this is for element attributes, not interface members. Having said > that, vendor-name (i.e. a single dash) is probably sufficient. It seems > highly unlikely we will ever use webkit-, ms-, o-, gecko- as an attribute > name. In fact, iirc we follow the policy that new attribute names will not > have hyphens in them, unless it is for some kind of pattern (like data-). Is this supposed to be a general policy? We couldn't determine whether to go with or without dashes when naming an attribute in the bidi meeting a few months ago - current practice seems to go both ways, from a trawl of the attribute index. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 11:40:20 UTC