- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:27:53 +1200
- To: Karl Tomlinson <karlt+public-audio@karlt.net>
- Cc: "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOp6jLYFOpFjrNenVxoUBV=zEgmYL-8SB9kRGtftNEqFQv-hkg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Karl Tomlinson < karlt+public-audio@karlt.net> wrote: > Would it make sense to have setOrientation() throw an exception if > any the vectors are zero or otherwise linearly dependent? > > It is not possible to determine appropriate panning parameters in > these situations, and the azimuth and elevation from the > calculation in [1] become undefined because an attempt is made to > normalize a zero vector. > > If the orientation is not known, then I think it would be better > to retain the previous orientation than to suddenly change to some > default orientation. Throwing an exception seems the appropriate > way to indicate that a setter method was not successful in > changing anything. > With 2D canvas we decided it was better to not throw for singularities because you don't want to break the application when it's doing some animation that passes through a singularity. I think the same logic applies here. So I suggest just silently ignoring the setOrientation call. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * *
Received on Monday, 26 August 2013 02:28:21 UTC