Should async_sequence be AsyncSequence?

[saschanaz]

What is the issue with the Web IDL Standard?

w3c/wot-scripting-api#578 (comment) raised a question of the new usage of snake_case. I think for async_iterable as a declaration it's ok-ish as there are no precedents of multi-word keyword there (only modifiers like readonly), but for async_sequence as a type certainly has PascalCase precedents - DOMString and its string friends, and FrozenArray and its array friend.

Perhaps this is a chance to think about consistent casing?

Looking back, we could keep async iterable as-is if we changed the type to AsyncSequence, even with the proposed async disposer in #1488 :

PartialInterfaceMember ::
    (... skipped ...)
    MaybeAsyncDeclarations
    async MaybeAsyncDeclarations

MaybeAsyncDeclarations::
  Iterable
  Disposer

[annevk]

Are you also saying sequence should be Sequence? I don't know if there's rationale for record being lowercase and Promise starting with a capital.

All the numeric types are lowercase too (and the proposed replacements such as uint16 would still be lowercase).

DOMString we wanted to eventually replace with String (maybe string?).

I'd be inclined to stick with what we have until we have a complete proposal for all of it.