- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:53:26 -0700
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 14 September 2015 at 13:47, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> For RTCIceCandidate, I think one of Peter's PRs suggestd a bunch of new
> fields for it (and we agreed, I think, that if we have both the string
> form and the attribute form, all of the fields would have to be readonly).
Yes, but that is orthogonal to this. If we accept either .candidate
or the { set of things Peter described } this still works.
> Note (in case we adopt this): I think we can make the argument to
> pc.addCandidate be "RTCIcecandidate or DOMString" for as long as we want
> to preserve compatibility for. Doesn't have to be in the spec either.
We can't do that because each candidate needs to be matched to a media
section with mLineIndex or mid.
Received on Monday, 14 September 2015 20:53:54 UTC