> On Jan 15, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 15 January 2015 at 13:06, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote: >> On 1/15/15 1:54 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: >>> On a related topic to this, I think we should change this from an enum to >>> a string because of the issues where we can't extent an enum in webIDL >> >> I believe we're only in trouble if we take RTCStatsType as input somewhere, >> I don't think we do. > > Yes. The hack for constraints was necessary to allow applications to > provide input values that the browser wasn't ready for yet in specific > contexts. There, we didn't want the browser to fail immediately > because the values there are sort-of-guidelines. RTCStatsType is pure > output, so no issue there. Agree with that but I'm unaware of the WebIDL to extend an existing enum when someone defines a new output type in a new spec a few years from now. Particularly when multiple specs extend the same enum.Received on Thursday, 15 January 2015 23:30:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:03 UTC