- From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 23:29:54 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
> 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