W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2012

Re: CHANGE: [Bug 18486] New: Let RTCSessionDescription take a Dictionary parameter

From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:58:12 +0000
To: Tommy Widenflycht (ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ) <tommyw@google.com>
CC: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "<public-webrtc@w3.org>" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <032CFE86-3B1C-48BB-8466-6FC80E57A156@cisco.com>

On Aug 27, 2012, at 2:20 AM, Tommy Widenflycht (ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ) <tommyw@google.com> wrote:

> 
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> On 08/24/2012 05:51 PM, Randell Jesup wrote:
> On 8/24/2012 10:43 AM, Tommy Widenflycht (ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ) wrote:
> It has been pointed out to me that the stringify algorithm is broken,
> especially for RTCSessionDescription since the sdp member most certainly
> contains newlines. Should had noticed that myself, doh.
> 
> Also some clarification regarding exactly what the end result is need to
> be put in the specification.
> We had a discussion regarding if this was meant to be JSON or not.
> 
> /Tommy
> 
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Tommy Widenflycht (ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ)
> <tommyw@google.com <mailto:tommyw@google.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I'm fine both with removing the stringifier and letting it create
>     "JS object strings" as long as everyone understands that it
>     isn't necessarily JSON compatible.
> 
>     JSON.stringify(object) != (string)object
> 
> So, we have 3 options:
> 1) Use the current stringifier (with fixes for newlines, maybe quotes)
> 2) Move it to valid JSON (newlines, quotes, parens, ?)
> 3) drop the stringifier and use "JS object strings" (what's the impact of this?
> If we drop the stringifier, I think the result of trying to interpret the object as a string is "{ object object }", which is well defined, but kind of useless.
> 
> I wouldn't mind dropping it until we find a good reason to standardize it; people who want a particular stringification can write their own stringifiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> Especially since 100% compliant JSON can be produced with just one line: JSON.stringify(object).
> Why add duplicate functionality?
> 
> /Tommy
> 
> -- 
> Tommy Widenflycht | Senior Software Engineer | tommyw@google.com | +46 734162531
> Google Sweden AB, Kungsbron 2, SE-11122 Stockholm, Sweden
> Org. nr. 556656-6880
> 
> 

So I think it should be exactly the JSON form. However, if we remove the stringier, I think the spec should point out that  JSON.stringify(object) is a good way to get a string that can be used to re-constuct the object by simply using JSON.parse( string) 


Received on Monday, 27 August 2012 13:59:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 August 2012 13:59:05 GMT