Skip to content

Add audio/video fastSeek() method #656

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 7, 2024
Merged

Add audio/video fastSeek() method #656

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 7, 2024

Conversation

foolip
Copy link
Collaborator

@foolip foolip commented Feb 29, 2024

No description provided.

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
name: fastSeek()
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Perhaps this should be something like:

Suggested change
name: fastSeek()
name: HTMLMediaElement fastSeek() method

To make the context more obvious and to be more consistent with the way we've done things for Array methods?

(I don't know if this also implies that we should rename this to htmlmediaelement-fastseek too.)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@foolip foolip Mar 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Consistency you say? How about checkVisibility() and scrollIntoView()?

For Array, in many cases the prefix is needed to distinguish arrays and types arrays, and the includes() method also exists on String and IDBKeyRange.

Also consider requestVideoFrameCallback() which is certainly long enough to stand on its own, and is on HTMLVideoElement, not HTMLMediaElement. Having "HTMLMediaElement fastSeek()" + "HTMLVideoElement requestVideoFrameCallback()" doesn't feel right to me, too much irrelevant technical detail.

I think the guideline I'm imagining is along the lines of "use the shortest plausible name except when ambiguous and when there's a group of related features, make the same choice for all of them for consistency within that group."

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the guideline I'm imagining is along the lines of "use the shortest plausible name except when ambiguous and when there's a group of related features, make the same choice for all of them for consistency within that group."

OK, yes, I like the idea of using the shortest without creating ambiguity. I'll backtrack a little on #655 (comment) too.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Excellent, thank you! That discussion will continue in #548.

Are you happy (enough) with this name for now?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I'm satisfied now. I'll approve this PR, but I'll leave it to you to decide to merge or wait for Patrick's review.

@foolip foolip merged commit c561658 into main Mar 7, 2024
@foolip foolip deleted the fast-seek branch March 7, 2024 19:16
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants