- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:55:12 +0200
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, Anant Narayanan <anant@mozilla.com>, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 06/18/2012 11:26 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 18 June 2012 13:44, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)<fluffy@cisco.com> wrote: >> Anything works for me - thought the idea of prefixing things with Web in a browser seems oddly redundant but I'm perfectly happy with any decision on what the prefix is. > That, plus the weird mix of upper and lower case that I guarantee will > be a constant annoyance. Of course, everyone remembers that it's > XMLHttpRequest, or was it XmlHTTPRequest... Should consistency be > the goal, then I propose RtcPEeRConnectioN. > > Can someone more deeply versed in the naming rules come forth with an > explanation of why these classes couldn't be moved to a namespace of > their own as Anant suggests (i.e., RTC.PeerConnection)? Because WebIDL doesn't have namespaces?
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 07:55:50 UTC