- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:34:57 -0800
- To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Cc: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 15 January 2015 at 15:29, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote: > >> 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. I think that you can just say "these strings are added to enum X". And not worry about getting fancy. Do that a few times and Cameron will eventually fix WebIDL for you.
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2015 23:35:23 UTC