Consistent naming scheme

[asbjornu]

The current draft uses both camelCase and snake_case as per the following example:

{
  "consentRequests": {
    "cookies": "Store and/or access cookies on your device.",
    "ads_profiling": "Create a personalised ads profile."
  }
}

Please consider choosing one naming scheme and use that consistently. Since JSON derives from JavaScript, which in turn uses camelCase, I'd recommend to go with that, but no matter which casing you choose, please only use one. Converted to camelCase the above example would look like this:

{
  "consentRequests": {
    "cookies": "Store and/or access cookies on your device.",
    "adsProfiling": "Create a personalised ads profile."
  }
}

[coolharsh55]

+1 for camelCase; however the request IDs may themselves be derived from an external source and follow their own conventions. So a note in the document about use of camelCase as a preference would be ideal. I/You/We can create a PR to add this.

[gb-noyb]

Thanks for the sharp-eyed observation. I agree that specification itself should be consistent in the names it defines, and keys like consentRequests are indeed camelCased. The request identifiers, as Harshvardhan mentions, are up for the website to choose. I don’t think it’s up to us to tell websites which faction to join, but I suppose we can try give ‘a good example’. Happy either way, so since there is a PR lying here already I’ll just apply this suggestion.