Re: Removing syntaxerror for ice candidates

Den 09. juli 2015 11:25, skrev Dominique Hazael-Massieux:
> On 09/07/2015 10:47, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>> * there is no definition of what it means for an ICE candidate to be
>>> malformed (the RFC doesn't define such a term)
>> I think you're right. Syntax errors should be caught when constructing
>> the RTCIceCandidate from the string, not when pushing the
>> RTCIceCandidate into the PC.
>> But the error should be SyntaxError, and it should happen whenever the
>> candidate doesn't conform to the IceCandidate ABNF in the RFC.
> Note that the ABNF is a superset of what a meaninful candidate can be;
> in other words, there are plenty of room to write ABNF-compliant
> candidate parameters that can't be used in the end.
>> Where is it appropriate to say that this is a requirement on the
>> RTCIceCandidate constructor? (and is this indeed appropriate?)
> I'd be OK with failing on construction, but I'm not sure what this would
> gain us?
>>> * no browser seems to be doing this at the moment
>> It definitely fails on adding to the PC, not on construction. (Chrome 43)
> It does fail, but not with a SyntaxError (which is what I'm suggesting
> we remove).

So you're suggesting we remove the SyntaxError, but continue failing ...
what are you suggesting we use as a failure instead?

I'm much happier with proposing "change error code X to Y in case W"
than with "remove SytaxError".

Received on Thursday, 9 July 2015 10:10:18 UTC