Re: revised recording proposal from Martin Thomson on 2012-11-30 (public-media-capture@w3.org from November 2012)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:53:05 -0800
To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Cc: "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com>, "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXG1xK9=vbpg99WYtYb6ZDprDsYPQYb12dH4Lr=0w2rBQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 30 November 2012 12:49, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com> wrote:
> I couldn't think up a compelling argument for introducing a new interface that would only duplicate functionality that was already available in the generic bucket.

If that were the case, then we would never need to define anything.
The JavaScript Object class has all the functionality you ever need :)

Seriously, generic buckets are there for catch-all uses.  In
specifications, we should strive to be as specific as we can manage.
No pun intended.

Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 20:53:34 UTC