- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:19:09 +0200
- To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
- CC: "Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)" <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com>, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, Kiran Kumar Guduru <kiran.guduru@samsung.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 06/13/2014 05:16 PM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote: > On 2014-06-13 16:31, tim panton wrote: >>> Given that -use-cases is not changing, I don't see ANY justification for >>> revisiting the issue of whether we have this API or not. >> Agreed, my original point was that the additional features of filtering >> the invalid symbols >> could be done in 1 or 2 lines of javascript and so did not belong in the >> browser. > FWIW, I'm with Tim on this one. I also think it makes it clearer - > either the UA throws, or it sends all symbols. FWIW, I think the spec will be simpler if we throw IllegalCharacterException on strings that contain any character except [0-9A-Da-d*#,], and have no special treatment at sendout time (illegal characters can't occur there). I like simple specs; if we change anything, let's do that. -- Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Saturday, 14 June 2014 09:19:40 UTC