Re: Is onsignalingstatechange synchronous?

+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>
>
>
>