- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:52:27 +0200
- To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- CC: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, public-webrtc@w3.org
On 08/27/2012 04:33 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Stefan Hakansson LK > <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: > >> Perhaps we should change this; instead have more frequent telcos with fewer >> topic which we cover in depth. I would certainly be open for that if the WG >> (and my co-chair) thinks it is a good idea. And it would be natural to focus >> on covering the issues (in priority order) that block implementation in >> those meetings. > For my money, the best use of telcos is to resolve issues which aren't getting > resolved on the list. > > My priorities may not match anyone else's but here are the things > that I think are high priority (as in they are questions that are already > holding up implementation): > > - A complete description of error handling. I.e., which functions throw > exceptions, which have error callbacks. Do the functions which have > error callbacks ever throw exceptions? What is the state of affairs > after an error has occurred? Full disclosure: my position is that > any given API call should have exactly one error reporting mechanism. > Eric, can you point to some API that describes its error handling clearly enough that we can use it as a pattern? This one's been bothering me for a while, in that I see the need, but not how to answer it (or a volunteer to write a proposal).
Received on Monday, 27 August 2012 14:53:01 UTC