W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > January 2014

Re: MediaError object (Re: New Editor's draft v20131225)

From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:22:01 -0500
Message-ID: <52CEDAB9.7020803@mozilla.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, public-media-capture@w3.org
On 1/9/14 10:11 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 01/09/2014 04:04 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
>> It's not needed by programs, except programs that would need to do 
>> this anyway IMHO. I think we let this cat out of the bag when we said 
>> "SDP parsing" was an API. It's not. It's an emergency access panel to 
>> the implementation.
> To which viewpoint I agree.....
>> My point was quite specific: Line-number isn't enough to cover 
>> Sylvia's rather ambitious code anyway, which likely would look like 
>> this already to parse the error messages for clues, not to mention 
>> browser-specific SDP tricks that might need to be dealt with, so this 
>> seems par for the course. Who needs a silver spoon to eat out of 
>> trashcans?
> But SDP, for all its faults, has a specified grammar. So an SDP parser 
> can parse any compliant SDP, and "line number" has a specific meaning. 
> No browser implementor governs the syntax of SDP.
> My objection above is to encouraging browser-version-specific code.

If it is already needed, then this doesn't encourage it, so I don't see 
the problem.

The sole use-case brought up talks about reacting to SDP *errors* which 
to me sounds highly specific to how certain implementations operate, 
making the whole use-case about implementation kludging in my eyes.

If we're discussing what to encourage, I frankly think this particular 
use-case should be hard, a last resort rather than something we encourage.

.: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2014 17:22:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:23 UTC