W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > December 2016

[encrypted-media] The term "partial configuration" is unnecessary and confusing

From: xhwang-chromium via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 00:05:04 +0000
To: public-html-media@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-193247690-1480723503-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
xhwang-chromium has just created a new issue for 

== The term "partial configuration" is unnecessary and confusing ==
We use the term "accumulated configuration" in 58 places in the spec. 

Especially in, step 16.1:

> Let video capabilities be the result of executing the Get Supported 
Capabilities for Audio/Video Type algorithm on Video, candidate 
configuration's videoCapabilities member, **accumulated 
configuration**, and restrictions.

Then in "Get Supported Capabilities for Audio/Video Type", we 

> Given an audio/video type, MediaKeySystemMediaCapability sequence 
requested media capabilities, MediaKeySystemConfiguration **partial 
configuration**, and restrictions, this algorithm returns a sequence 
of supported MediaKeySystemMediaCapability values for this audio/video
 type or null as appropriate.

Note that the caller uses the term "accumulated configuration", but 
the callee uses "partial configuration". Then in step 1, we use "local
 accumulated configuration" again:

> Let local accumulated configuration be a local copy of partial 

Also "partial configuration" appeared in the spec 5 times. In 
it appeared 3 times. It also showed up in the "Note" of twice,
 where this term is totally undefined.

It seems to me it's unnecessary and confusing to introduce the new 
term "partial configuration" at all. Can we just replace it with 
"accumulated configuration"?

Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/366 using your GitHub 
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2016 00:05:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 3 December 2016 00:05:16 UTC