- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 07:01:58 +0000
- To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, "Peter Thatcher" <pthatcher@google.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 04/08/14 23:17, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> On 8/4/14 4:30 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>> On 8/4/14 15:23, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
>>> I recall more apathy than discontent, and I recall no actual
>>> arguments raised. The minutes don't show anything either
>>> http://www.w3.org/2014/05/21-mediacap-minutes.html - Maybe the
>>> recording reveals something. In any case, can someone humor me and
>>> articulate a reason?
>>
>> Because explicit indication is less confusing than implicit magic. If
>> we make indication of the intention stated every time, you trade on
>> the order of ten keystrokes for a massive improvement in readability.
>
> I'm arguing for less magic. { aspectRatio: 16/9 } means just that,
> always, and never anything else. That's explicit. JS isn't a
> type-checked language so more verbose isn't always better. We win by
> making things short, simple and obvious, and by making the simple, short
> and obvious thing work.
I think we're discussing this because it is not obvious. To some (me
included) a bare value signals "ideal", to others it signals
"mandatory/exact".
I think we're better off if the author has to be explicit. There would
be fewer examples needed, there would not be code snippets floating
around with bare constraints (where the author who found the snippet
might interpret the meaning of a bare value in the wrong way). My 5
cents as individual.
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2014 07:02:34 UTC