- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:34:01 +0000
- To: public-audio@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17334
Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |
--- Comment #3 from Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk> 2012-07-05 14:34:01 UTC ---
Mailing-list discussion on this topic between Ray Bellis, Chris Rogers, Marcus
Geelnard and myself:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2012AprJun/thread.html#msg856
Marcus has a pretty good summary, and raises something interesting:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2012AprJun/0865.html
«
Once you understand what the function does, the name makes sense. However,
the name alone does not make it easy to understand what it does.
I think that the confusion (at least for me) is that "setTargetValue" is
very similar to "setValue", and I fear that many will have them mixed up.
Generally speaking, the "set" term indicates a zero-duration operation.
I'd much rather see that methods that cause gradual changes use a
consistent naming convention, excluding the term "set".
I think that a more appropriate name could be "approachValueAtTime" or
"startApproachingValueAtTime".
Similarly the name "setValueCurveAtTime" would do better without "set".
Any suggestions? (I'm out of ideas right now)
»
--
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 14:34:11 UTC