- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:55:41 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21851 --- Comment #32 from Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> --- (In reply to comment #27) > Is the main reason for your objection backwards compatibility? My objection is * existing scripts that use TextTrackCue will stop working without any indication about what's wrong * new scripts might be written with the assumption that the cue will get rendered > The name TextTrackCue by itself (without looking at history) doesn't imply > whether it gets rendered on not - in fact, not even every VTTCue is/can be > rendered. Sure, but it's reasonable to assume that it can be rendered, especially since that's the case in current implementations. > The main reason I didn't introduce an UnprasedCue object is that I don't > really see the advantage of creating a basically empty object, just to get a > constructor: > > [Constructor(double startTime, double endTime, DOMString text)] > interface UnparsedCue : TextTrackCue { > }; The advantage is that existing scripts that use the TextTrackCue constructor get an exception so that it's super-easy to debug why it stopped working, and that it is clearer for newcomers that it's a dummy cue that they have to parse and render themselves. (I'm open for other names if anyone can think of a better name.) As for the .text property, I would suggest defining it on both UnparsedCue and VTTCue, and have these two interfaces inherit from TextTrackCue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 12 August 2013 14:55:43 UTC