{ readableStream, writableStream } should be { readable, writable }

[domenic]

https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-insertable-streams/blob/master/index.html#dictdef-rtcinsertablestreams

The conventional names for a pair of readable and writable streams are { readable, writable }, with no suffix. Aligning these will improve interoperability with the rest of the streams ecosystem, both concretely (e.g., making the object usable with pipeThrough()) and just in terms of web developer familiarity.

[guidou]

An early version of the API had them named {readable,writable}, but the feedback we got was that it was a bad idea to have those names precisely because it could be confused with a TransformStream.
This pair of streams is not a TransformStream and trying to use it as the argument to pipeThrough() would do nothing useful.

[domenic]

Not just transform streams use { readable, writable }; all "duplex streams" (i.e., all pairs of streams) do.

I can add some more specific "must" guidance to the Streams Standard if that would be helpful in moving this issue forward.

[guidou]

Reopening to continue the discussion.
cc @alvestrand

[sandersdan]

I was the source of the feedback mentioned above, and my concern was that it could be very hard to reason about the correct way to use the streams. pipeThough() appearing to work but not doing anything useful seems like it will cause a lot of frustration for first-time users. I think that error being present in the issue description above supports my concern.

Adding a 'Stream' suffix isn't inherently more clear though, it just prevents that specific mistake and encourages users to look at the documentation.

I don't know if you are considering more substantial changes, like for example inverting the relationship to be a method that takes a Transformer and sets up the pipes for you.

[alvestrand]

pipeThrough() on this object would create a loop, so pipeThrough() not working is a feature. This API is exposing what's effectively a pipeline insertion point, not a duplex channel.

[domenic]

That's a good explanation, and it would have been useful if it were in the spec or explainer. Regardless, it's still ideal for readable/writable pairs to use uniform naming, instead of some of them having arbitrary redundant "-Stream" suffixes.

[guidou]

We're going for the readable/writable name for consistency with other stream pairs.

[domenic]

Thank you very much! I'll work on getting the Streams spec updated with stronger guidance.