W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webtiming@w3.org > August 2015

Re: [timingobject] Is the Interval interface needed?

From: Ingar Arntzen via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:49:41 +0000
To: public-webtiming@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-133073166-1440089380-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Agree. The approach with timedtexttrack aligning with existing 
texttrack spec removes the motivation for this. Please remove it.

The reason I introduced this in the Sequencer implementation was to 
allow cues to be laid out back-to-back  (e.g.  cue1: [a,b], cue2: 
[b,c] and cover the entire "timeline" without introducing ambiguity 
concerning possible overlap at shared endpoints (i.e. point b) --- is 
both cue1 and cue2 valid in b or just one of them?  Avoiding this 
ambiguity by defining intervals like [a,b> and [b,c> makes it easier 
for the programmer and also allows him/her to exploit precedence rules
 regarding event ordering.

GitHub Notif of comment by ingararntzen
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2015 16:49:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:25:14 UTC