W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2013

Re: TextTrack API changes

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>
Message-ID: <op.wv2a14khidj3kv@simons-macbook-pro.local>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:32 UTC