-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 133
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
Conversation
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ | |||
name: fastSeek() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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:
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.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
No description provided.