- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:25:18 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12267 --- Comment #53 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-08-29 07:25:15 UTC --- Asynchronous APIs are a huge pain to work with. Trading a volatile API (changes as the script is running based on the latest state; events may execute after the state they are notifying about is no longer relevant) for an inaccurate one (the APIs don't actually represent the current state, they represent in some cases the state at the time the script started and in other cases the state as it was when an event was fired, even though the state the event is notifying about is no longer relevant) is at least just trading one bad API for another. Trading a synchronous API for an asynchronous one just to make the inaccurate API less obviously inaccurate is a much worse trade, IMHO. Once an author calls pause(), the video should IMHO pause and the API should IMHO immediately show a stable state. Having .paused return false after a call to pause() would just make authors think the API was broken. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 07:25:20 UTC