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
