- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 13:59:45 +0100
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Den 01. des. 2015 22:22, skrev Boris Zbarsky: > On 12/1/15 3:40 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >> Getting around this "in prose" requires hacks. And since our >> implementation uses an IDL compiler, this requires our IDL to be >> different from the spec's IDL in gratuitous ways. > > I'm a little confused. What is (or should be) the spec's IDL here? > > If you're talking about just doing this in your own IDL, not in the > spec, then you can clearly add something to your IDL implementation that > allows the distinguishability you need here or something.... The spec's IDL has changed multiple times over the years. This year's version: Promise<RTCSessionDescription> createOffer (optional RTCOfferOptions options); void createOffer (RTCSessionDescriptionCallback successCallback, RTCPeerConnectionErrorCallback failureCallback, optional RTCOfferOptions options); (yes, there's a weird interaction here with overloading of promise vs non-promise; the consensus between Firefox and Chrome seems to be that interpreting void as Promise<void> and never resolving the promise is kind-of-OK.) August 2012 version: void createOffer (RTCSessionDescriptionCallback successCallback, optional RTCPeerConnectionErrorCallback failureCallback, optional MediaConstraints constraints); That's the one that Chrome currently implements.
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2015 13:00:16 UTC