- From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:36:46 +0200
- To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- CC: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 2013-06-12 16:40, cowwoc wrote: > On 12/06/2013 9:59 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >> On 06/10/2013 02:27 PM, Adam Bergkvist wrote: >>> Thanks Jim for taking the time to review. Comments inline. >>> >>> On 2013-06-06 21:28, Jim Barnett wrote: >>>> Adam, >>>> >>>> Here are a few nits from the latest editor’s draft. >>>> >>>> In section 4.3.1, we have: >>>> >>>> · Return connection, but continue these steps asynchronously. >>>> >>>> · Await a stable state. The synchronous section consists of the >>>> remaining steps of this algorithm. >>>> >>>> >> Should the second bullet item say “The asynchronous section…”? >>> >>> This is a bit messy. The async section was a central part of the >>> pre-JSEP API constructor, but I think it's pretty much non-existent >>> in the current version. We need to do some cleaning here. >> >> I think this is terminology from HTML5 - that spec seems to >> consistently refer to a "synchronous section" when it talks about >> sections that are being executed asynchronously. >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/single-page.html#synchronous-section >> >> Personally, I find that terminology almighty confusing - but there's >> value in using the same terminology, so that people only have to get >> used to the terminology once. >> >> >> > > The HTML5 document never actually defines what a synchronous section > means. It just uses it as part of a sentence, and you're doing the same. > In both cases I have no idea what the writer is trying to convey. > > I'm with Jim on this one: find a another way to convey this idea, or > formally define what a synchronous section means. (And frankly, the > HTML5 guys should do the same) ;) It's really not a problem since we don't have a sync section anymore. The step that says that "The synchronous section consists of the remaining steps of this algorithm." is indeed the last step. I can take an action to clean it up. /Adam
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 09:37:10 UTC