All I am saying is that this "We eff'ed up, and gotta live with it." is exactly what I'd like to avoid from now on.
If tomorrow `NodeList` instances would implement `list.for_each` method instead of `forEach`, basically nobody can complain as it is now, which is kinda embarrassing. That's just an example, the proposal is also already about `forEach`, but then why wouldn't we formalize that on specs? At least as suggested naming convention guideline. Best Regards On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:34 PM, kdex <[email protected]> wrote: > As for the Web APIs, this should be (and has been) filed with the > corresponding APIs. > Specifically for the Web Manifest spec, you might want to check [1] and > [2] (there's even a few comments on `background-color`). > > (tl;dr: W3C says: "There are now about ~50000 sites using manifests, it's > too late to make these kinds of changes" and "We eff'ed up, and gotta live > with it.") > > Rants aside, since this mailing list is really just scoped to ES, I think > it's worth bringing up that many languages handle this differently. > > Languages that define a set of coding standards are sparse; there are many > where every framework uses its own guidelines (like PHP with Zend, PEAR, …). > Some appear to recommend some non-normative guidelines (like C# [3]) while > others do in fact maintain official documents stating their coding > conventions, > like Rust [4] and Python [5]. > > [1] https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/72 > [2] https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/7 > [3] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff926074.aspx > [4] https://doc.rust-lang.org/style/style/naming/README.html > [5] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/ > > > On Dienstag, 28. Juni 2016 11:41:43 CEST Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > > I think background-color, as it is in CSS, works well with JSON, and > > backgroundColor, as it is already in JS works well as counterpart. > > > > Whoever introduced background_color there really should rethink such > > decision. > > > > This is exactly the kind of shenanigans I'd like to see disappearing once > > we have a clear "it's either quoted 'background-color' or backgroundColor > > for properties and never 'background_color'". > > > > How difficult could this be? > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:58 AM, kdex <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'd appreciate that, too, but I think the scope should be much bigger > than > > > just ES (which is hard to enforce). > > > > > > Right now, we even see some deviations in certain Web APIs that are > > > designed to interoperate with ES to some degree. > > > See for example [1] or [2]. > > > > > > One of the most opposing trends (and thus maybe weirdest cases) would > be > > > the property names in web app manifests > > > using something akin to C-style variable naming [3], i. e. underscores, > > > all-lowercase, often using ambiguous abbreviations > > > like `dir` for `direction` but being A-OK with spelling out > > > `background_color` instead of `bg_col`. > > > > > > I'm not saying that it's futile to incorporate the unwritten style > rules > > > into the spec, but it wouldn't "fix" misnamed Web APIs > > > that would still appear somewhere in our code (and might make linters > go > > > nuts?). > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/w3c/web-nfc/issues/27 > > > [2] > > > > https://github.com/w3ctag/design-principles/issues/15#issuecomment-115113438 > > > [3] https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/#example-manifest > > > > > > On Dienstag, 28. Juni 2016 08:14:14 CEST Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > > > > I know the "what majority does" answer, yet I wonder if to avoid API > > > > fragmentation we should stick in the specification the fact that > > > ECMAScript > > > > is a `camelCase` oriented programming language. > > > > > > > > This will put an end to those coming from C, Python, Ruby, or PHP > using > > > > `property_name` for their new API and developers will finally have a > > > > minimal guide on language naming convention. > > > > > > > > It is backward compatible, since IIRC there are no exception to this > > > > unwritten rule in older specs or APIs, and it will hopefully grant > future > > > > consistency. > > > > > > > > It shouldn't be different from what WebIDL has already, if anything, > > > since > > > > also WebIDL follows same convention. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > Best Regards > > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
