- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:58:41 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25354 --- Comment #4 from Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com> --- (In reply to Aaron Colwell from comment #3) > (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. I wouldn't necessarily call ID3 a "well defined" format. An ID3 metadata item has a key and a value, and while you can infer the value's data type from the key in reality it can be anything at all. ID3 is not the only metadata format with *exactly* these characteristics (eg. QuickTime, MPEG-4, MPEG-7, etc). Are you really suggesting that we create different Cue types for every one? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 17:58:43 UTC