Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Legacy Interface Extensions is somewhat unclear #3027

Open
gsnedders opened this issue Dec 6, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Legacy Interface Extensions is somewhat unclear #3027

gsnedders opened this issue Dec 6, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@gsnedders
Copy link
Member

gsnedders commented Dec 6, 2024

https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-pc/#legacy-interface-extensions opens with:

Supporting the methods in this section is optional. However, if these methods are supported it is mandatory to implement according to what is specified here.

It then defines various "method extensions": these are just defining behaviour for given operation overloads — I don't think it is intended that RTCPeerConnection interface's createOffer operation is optional to support (i.e., what I'd expect "the createOffer method" to refer to, thus what I'd expect "the methods in this section" to refer to), just that that specific overload is optional to support.

It's also to me somewhat unclear whether this text allows you to support the legacy createOffer overload but not the legacy setLocalDescription overload; i.e., can you support some of the legacy overloads, or is it meant to be all or nothing? They're optional, but is that collective or individual — the second sentence quoted above makes me think the intention is collective, but it could be clearer.

Then we reach the "Legacy configuration extensions" — and here it is very unclear what the implementation requirement is. Dictionary members are in no way methods, and the createOffer(optional RTCOfferOptions options = {}) override is mandatory to implement, so it doesn't obviously fall under the "supporting the methods in this section", which… implies supporting them is mandatory? But I don't think that's the intention.

We should clarify the conformance requirements for this section.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant