W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > November 2011


From: Jan Lindquist <jan.lindquist@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 19:16:02 +0100
To: "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
CC: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Message-ID: <82276AE38FD87A4C9CF6C820AC5276EA3478FB61AF@ESESSCMS0362.eemea.ericsson.se>

Adding the granular aspect is very useful. My suggestion is to simply add a reason attribute to give the additional details. I am concerned with possible too many layers. You have 3 levels with this proposal, general error, http error and http response code. Or maybe I misunderstood.

The question is what can be done with the error reason. Does it need to be formalized so the application can take different actions based on reason or is it simply to facilitate support. I believe the intention is the later, simply facilitate support. So simply a string and not necessarily code is needed.


From: Vickers, Mark [Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 6:05 PM
To: Mark Watson
Cc: public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG
Subject: Re: [MEDIA_PIPELINE_TF] HTML media errors

This is a great start. The backwards compatibility is good.

Should we reference to the IETF protocol documents which define the errors (DNS, TCP, TLS, HTTP, ...) for the error code list and meanings?

Also, how were these errors chosen out of all errors defined in those specs?


On Nov 4, 2011, at 9:05 AM, Mark Watson wrote:


I put up a proposal for additional network-related errors at http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/HTML_Error_codes

I would hope these would be uncontroversial and so could be added to one of the existing LC1 bugs as a concrete proposal for discussion.

I suggest we discuss these a little on this list and then link them from the appropriate bug.

Received on Friday, 4 November 2011 18:34:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:10 UTC