Re: [Bug 17287] New: PeerConnectionErrorCallback argument

So you plan to make errorCallBack public to both peerconnection and
NavigatorUserMeida.
Yes, you are right,no difference at all except interface name.
Do we need modify the navigatorusermediaerrorcallback interface and
description? Uberti suggest
a errorCallBack parameter for peerconnection.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote:

> On 06/01/2012 10:46 PM, bugzilla@jessica.w3.org wrote:
>
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/**Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17287<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17287>
>>
>>            Summary: PeerConnectionErrorCallback argument
>>            Product: WebRTC Working Group
>>            Version: unspecified
>>           Platform: PC
>>         OS/Version: All
>>             Status: NEW
>>           Severity: normal
>>           Priority: P2
>>          Component: WebRTC API
>>         AssignedTo: public-webrtc@w3.org
>>         ReportedBy: juberti@google.com
>>                 CC: public-webrtc@w3.org
>>
>>
>> As mentioned in the TODO, we need to decide if this should work like the
>> getUserMedia error callback, which provides an object that holds the error
>> information, or as speced here, where it just provides a string.
>>
>
> I see no reason to create a difference between the getUserMedia error
> callback and this error callback.
>
> Having an object also makes extending the interface easier.
>
>
>
>> 4.1.4 PeerConnectionErrorCallback
>>
>> callback PeerConnectionErrorCallback = void (DOMString errorInformation)
>>
>> DOMString errorInformation
>> Information about what went wrong. Open Issue: How does this work? Is it
>> human
>> readable? I18N? ENUM?
>>
>> TODO: Open Issue: should this be defined as event like
>> NavigatorUserMediaErrorCallbac**k in getusermedia
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Yang
Huawei