- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:44:30 +1000
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > > On Mon, 24 May 2010, Philip J?genstedt wrote: > > > > I think we both agree but aren't understanding each other very well, or > I'm > > not thinking very clearly. People will write players assuming that > currentTime > > starts at 0 and ends at duration. If this is not the case they will > break, so > > an API which makes this not be the case in very few cases isn't very > nice. > > Agreed. I've made the API clearly say that "duration" is the time at the > end, even in the case where the start is not actually zero, to sidestep > this issue somewhat. (The start will almost always be zero, so the > slightly misleading name seems like a non-issue.) > It's a shame we are using the word "duration" instead of the more appropriate word "endTime" for this. Would it be too difficult to change it at this time? Cheers, Silvia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100818/f1b06438/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2010 00:44:30 UTC