- From: Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 17:51:54 +0000
- To: olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>, "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
> From: olivier Thereaux [mailto:olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:38 PM > If we are to resolve this issue with the addition of the start/stop > methods, we will need to decide what to do with the noteOn/noteOff ones. I definitely favor the addition of the "start" and "stop" methods and expect the re-name should lead to less confusion among developers. I know it took me a moment to realize what "noteOn" and "noteOff" were for the first time I read the spec. > Several options were considered: > > 1) Keep the noteOn/noteOff methods as deprecated (which would be a > little strange in a first official version of the spec) > 2) Remove them altogether (which may be a problem given the many > implementations of the draft spec) > 3) Keep them but mention that they may be deprecated in the future, and > that start/stop is preferred I tend to lean toward option #2, maybe with an informative note stating that earlier drafts of the spec used "noteOn"/"noteOff". Overall it feels a bit early to leave this kind of legacy as a normative part of the standard. That said I'll admit I don't know how many implementations of the current draft spec we're talking about. -Tony
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 17:52:45 UTC