W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2011

[Bug 13943] The "bad cue" handling is stricter than it should be

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:31:43 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1R2QT1-0005vv-LA@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #5 from Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> 2011-09-10 16:31:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> It makes all kinds of extensions possible, for example it allows configuration
> default blocks, etc, all by just having the syntax not include a valid time
> range in the second line of the block. Your proposal (which if I understand
> correctly is to just keep trying to read a time line until it's successful?)
> would preclude that. So far, all the extensions proposed have been of this
> nature, rather than of the nature of adding features to a cue — which we can
> already do anyway, by adding more settings after the time range (which is why
> invalid settings are ignored, and don't cause the cue to be dropped).

I don't follow, at all. For default blocks in the beginning of the file, why
would it include a timing line at all? It would be skipped entirely. For
additional settings on cues on lines before or after the id line, dropping the
cue entirely seems like terrible fallback.

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 Saturday, 10 September 2011 16:31:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:02:03 UTC