+1 "Successfully applied" was what I originally meant by "supplied". On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com > wrote: > On 2013-05-15 01:41, Martin Thomson wrote: > >> On 14 May 2013 11:59, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: >> >>> The problem with the current spec is that the state transitions are all >>> worded in a way that assumes success. Look at Jan-Ivar's example: >>> >>> have-local-offer A local description, of type "offer", has been >>> supplied. >>> >>> >>> That's an extremely naïve way of describing it, since it presumes that >>> the >>> SDP is valid and that the PeerConnection signaling state machine was in a >>> state for which supplying local offer made sense. (Alternately, on its >>> face, >>> it means that the state changes to "have-local-offer" regardless of >>> whether >>> the offer was valid or whether it made any sense to supply it). So, when >>> I >>> said "and successful," what I really meant was that it would be far >>> clearer >>> to say something like: >>> >>> have-local-offer A local description, of type "offer", has been >>> successfully applied. >>> >>> >> The "supplied" makes some (bad) assumptions about what/who is >> supplying and what/who is receiving. It can't be application -> >> browser if the state transition is to make any sense. "successfully >> applied" is definitely a better choice of words. >> > > I think it makes sense to update this text as described above. > > Regarding when the state change occurs and the event is dispatched, see > [1]. > > /Adam > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/**editor/webrtc.html#set-** > description-model<http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html#set-description-model> > > >
Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 23:57:36 UTC