W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2015

Re: Removing syntaxerror for ice candidates

From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 08:48:57 +0000
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A222C88B6882744D8D4B9681B315889023F96A59@ESESSMB307.ericsson.se>
On 2015-07-09 12:25, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> On 09/07/2015 12:09, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>> 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".
>
> The spec already has a step failure after the current syntaxerror:
>     If the candidate parameter is malformed, reject p with SyntaxError and
>     jump to the step labeled Return.
>
>     If the candidate could not be successfully applied, reject p with a
>     DOMError object whose name attribute has the value TBD
> http://w3c.github.io/webrtc-pc/#widl-RTCPeerConnection-addIceCandidate-Promise-void--RTCIceCandidate-candidate
>
> I don't have a specific probably for what TBD should be; the spec
> suggests InvalidCandidate and InvalidMidIndex, but that probably needs
> to be revisited in light of how we now understand errors should be managed.
>
> But even if the whole picture is not clear yet, the reasons for removing
> syntaxerror (not well defined, not implemented, not necessary) still stand.
>
> Dom
>

If we plan to fail when an RTCIceCandidate is constructed with a bad 
candidate string, we need to perform the same check every time the 
corresponding attribute is set.

/Adam
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2015 08:49:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:45 UTC