- From: Nils Dagsson Moskopp <nils@dieweltistgarnichtso.net>
- Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:48:56 +0100
- To: Ralph Giles <giles@mozilla.com>
- Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Robert O'Callahan <roc@ocallahan.org>
Ralph Giles <giles@mozilla.com> schrieb am Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:23:38 -0800: > On 12-12-11 4:58 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > […] > > > I don't think we should have an open-ended API without fixed names, > > because that is a recipe for an interoperability disaster. > > I agree it would have interoperability issues. My own implementation > experience is that the easy thing to do is to mirror whatever > representation your playback framework offers, which can result in > per-platform differences as well as per-media-format (and per tagging > application, etc.). Just doing “the easiest thing” when you are a content-emitter (e.g. a software developer just mirroring what the platform provides) does make it easier for the sender while making it harder for the receiver – it creates “computational dark energy” that has to be consumed somehow at the receiving side, as someone has to map all of these platform-specific conventions onto common semantics. I rather not have a world in which one needs even more JavaScript blobs just to provide basic functionality cross-browser. > That said, I'm not convinced this is an issue given the primary > use-case, which is pretty much that web content wants to do more > sophisticated things with the metadata than the user-agent's > standardized parsing allows. If one cares to that extent, and is > already handling format differences, dealing with vendor variation on > top isn't that much more effort. I disagree, strongly. -- Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann <http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net>
Received on Sunday, 17 February 2013 13:50:02 UTC