- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 19:02:35 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21854 --- Comment #6 from David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> --- Thanks, Mark. The diagram makes sense. I would put the last keymessage-closing-update() series in an opt box. close() might be implicit, but I'm not sure we need to be explicit about that here. Assuming we roughly agree on what the states are, we need to decide: * If/how to expose (a subset of?) the states. * If/how to document this. (i.e. Is it just informative to help in understanding? If so, does it go in a primer, etc.?) Expanding on a couple things mentioned in the telecon today: * The important question to ask is whether the application needs to know the states or does it have enough information from events to behave correctly without explicit states. (Are there additional events necessary to achieve this?) * The diagram should probably be a state machine. (When specifying implementations, this probably makes the sense. However, the sequence diagram is probably useful as an introduction/primer for someone to understand how a typical flow might look.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 19:02:39 UTC