- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:26:18 +0200
- To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: "Bob Lund" <B.Lund@cablelabs.com>, "Jerry Smith (WINDOWS)" <jdsmith@microsoft.com>, "Mark Vickers @ Comcast" <mark_vickers@cable.comcast.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:35:49 +0200, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > Ah right. Yes, an undefined return value is preferred in that case. Can > we > just leave these two methods in place on TextTrackCue then rather than > moving them? I think what Silvia meant is that having .text on WebVTTCue instead of TextTrackCue is preferred. I tend to agree. I also think now is the wrong time to argue about on which interface the various members should be, because we only have an API for WebVTT so far. > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com >> wrote: > >> I think that is a worse interface than the default "undefined" return >> value in JavaScript, because it doesn't allow a JS developer to >> distinguish >> between when there is really an empty string returned as the actual >> value >> in contrast to that functionality not being available on a text track >> cue >> type. I'd prefer we just leave it as is. >> Silvia. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2013 20:27:12 UTC