- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:45:23 +0200
- To: public-webrtc-editors@w3.org
Den 21. aug. 2015 14:17, skrev Dominique Hazael-Massieux: > Anne suggests a cleaner separation between the API and the model in the > Medica Capture & Streams spec (see below) "There's lots of stuff like that" kind of translates to me as "I don't like your style". Which I don't think of as an actionable item. > > Dom > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: Last Call comments on Media Capture and Streams > Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:40:15 +0200 > From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> > To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> > CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> > wrote: >> Can you maybe list the most important best practices the draft fails to >> follow and I could then have a go at identifying the failures and/or >> suggesting patches? > > It's mostly that a lot of the language defining class members is > rather inconsistent and sloppy. And there's no clear separation > between API and model. E.g., the description for the label property > has suggestions for what a user agent can do with labels, while it > should just describe the getter. > > The model section is marked non-normative which seems somewhat > suspect, can it be removed and you can still implement the API without > issue? The words used in the model section are again rather sloppy, > when you talk about a model there's no more "tags" involved. That's > markup. I dunno, there's lot's of stuff like that. The usual argument for making models non-normative is that if a conflict is found between the API description and the model description, the API description overrides the model description. I'm inclined to recommend ignoring ths particular point. > >
Received on Friday, 21 August 2015 18:45:54 UTC