- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:40:28 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25354 --- Comment #3 from Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com> --- (In reply to Brendan Long from comment #2) > I think the idea is that we would generally provide either .data or .value, > but if a UA gains the ability to parse the data and adds .value, it should > continue providing .data if possible to avoid breaking existing applications. > > I'm not opposed to splitting this into two different cue types if the > consensus is that that's better though. For Apple's use-cases, we might want > to start by defining an ID3Cue (or maybe more generically named, since > name/value pairs are a common kind of metadata). For known well defined things like ID3 I think it is better to define and expose an ID3Cue instead of using something generic like DataCue. I would be interested in participating in the discussion around exposing ID3 data via an ID3Cue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 17:40:30 UTC