RE: Constraints as a separate interface from Jim Barnett on 2013-10-16 (public-media-capture@w3.org from October 2013)

From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:30:23 +0000
To: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D28108787B@GENSJZMBX03.msg.int.genesyslab.com>

Yes, I have made it a dictionary.  That will make it easier for authors.

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Bergkvist [mailto:adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:34 AM
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux
Cc: Jim Barnett; public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: Re: Constraints as a separate interface

On 2013-10-11 09:39, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> - I don't understand the value of having an interface for 
> PropertyValueRange (and a constructor) where a simple dictionary would 
> work;

I agree. A dictionary is preferable since we can get rid of the redundant constructor name and get named properties instead.

/Adam

Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 12:30:47 UTC