W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2013

Re: [cssom-view] Drop "DOM" prefix from DOMRect et al?

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:53:12 +1200
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLYm6b7O4wD0k-rk9MEwdwMq3XzQGRZX=-QG5o0QM2qrwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:

> In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-script-coord/**
> 2013JulSep/0666.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2013JulSep/0666.html>it was suggested that the "DOM" prefix be dropped from
> DOMRect/DOMPoint/DOMQuad etc. TC39 consensus is to avoid using prefixes,
> and JavaScript is going to introduce new names like System, Symbol, etc.
> WebIDL interface objects are exposed as configurable objects in JS, so user
> code can overwrite them. Also URL is introduced without prefix.
>

Tab explained in that thread some reasons why we want to use a prefix.

User code can overwrite WebIDL interface objects, but if for example some
user code wants to use the name Rect, it's a pain to mix that with other
code that wants to use the DOM Rect API, so name collisions still have a
cost.

How are we going to settle this once and for all so it doesn't get reopened
again?

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w  *
*
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2013 10:53:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:34 UTC