More WebIDL Issues

[aboba]

From: Jason Ausborn [email protected]
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:12:51 -0500
To: "[email protected]" [email protected]
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ortc/2014Jun/0038.html

Possible Issue Location : 2.3 Interface Definition (interface
RTCDtlsTransport)

Possible Issue : Inside the interface we have a sequence, but
ArrayBuffer is not a WebIDL type, and we don't have it defined anywhere
else.

---

Possible Issue Location :
4.3 Infterface Definition (interface RTCIceTransportController)

Possible Issue : int is not a valid WebIDL type for addTransport (..., int
index) parameter.

---

Possible Issue Location 1 :
9.4 dictionary RTCRtcCodecCapability

Possible Issue Location 2:
9.7 dictionary RTCRtcCodecParameters

Possible Issue : Inside the dictionary we have a Dictionary type for
parameters, I don't think it is valid syntax to have a dictionary
type inside a dictionary.

---

Possible Issue Location : 11.3 Interface Definition (interface
RTCDataChannel)

Possible Issue 1: We have a Promise type used in the interface, but Promise
is not a WebIDL type, and we don't have a Promise type defined anywhere
else.

Possible Issue 2: We have an ArrayBuffer type used for RTCDataChannel.data,
but ArrayBuffer is not a WebIDL type, and we don't have ArrayBuffer defined
anywhere else.

---

Possible Issue Location : 13 Statistics API & 13.5 RTCStats Dictionary

Possible Issue : In section 13 we have a RTCStats interface, but we also
have a dictionary in 13.5 named RTCStats. Since they have the same name,
there is a clash. We might want to change the name of one of them.

---

Possible Issue Location 1:
6.3 Interface Definition (interface RTCRtpSender)

Possible Issue Location 2:
7.3 Interface Definition (interface RTCRtpReceiver)

Possible Issue : We don't have the MediaStreamTrack type defined anywhere.

---

HTH

[aboba]

1. How about this instead of ArrayBuffer?

typedef octect[] ArrayBuffer;

1. unsigned long instead of int
2. A dictionary member can be a dictionary, as noted in WebIDL Section 3.3:

Each dictionary member (matching DictionaryMember) is specified as a type (matching Type) followed by an identifier (given by an identifier token following the type). The identifier is the key name of the key–value pair. If the Type is an identifier followed by ?, then the identifier MUST identify an interface, enumeration, callback function or typedef. If the dictionary member type is an identifier not followed by ?, then the identifier MUST identify any one of those definitions or a dictionary.

1. Promises are a legal type, as noted here:
   http://heycam.github.io/webidl/#idl-promise
2. We can rename RTCStats. One way:

interface RTCStatsBase {
    Promise<RTCStatsReport> getStats();
};

And then each interface that does stats derives from:

interface RTCRtpSender : RTCStatsBase {...}

1. We should link to the MedaiStreamTrack definition.

[Jayzon]

On the dictionary member, I believe that WebIDL may be expecting a dictionary type to be defined before it can be used as a member in another dictionary.

Currently :

dictionary RTCRtpCodecParameters {
   ...
    Dictionary parameters;
};

We might need to define the parameters dictionary type, and then place it as a dictionary member like this below.

dictionary RTCRtpCodecParameters {
   ...
    codecSpecificParameters parameters;
};

dictionary codecSpecificParameters {
   ...
};

However, the above may not be the case if the WebIDL syntax checker (that I am using) is not covering the current WebIDL syntax. The above change passes with the WebIDL online checker, and the previous syntax does not.

This is the WebIDL checker that I have been checking the syntax with.
http://www.w3.org/2009/07/webidl-check

Also, I was not able to get the syntax for a Promise type to work with the WebIDL checker yet, but I agree it is a legal type based on the specification, but I'm not confident with my understanding of the expected syntax currently.

[robin-raymond]

@Jayzon do you know how anonymous dictionaries should be defined? I'm not sure myself with webidl.

[Jayzon]

@robin-raymond Not fully sure based on the webidl spec. And to be honest, the way it is now may be correct. It is the webidl checker that pointed this out as an issue which doesn't seem to be fully up to date on the webidl spec.

I will try to find out more about this soon to know, but I wonder if we can just use an object type.

Example :

dictionary example {
object anonDictionary;
};

The above syntax does pass with the webidl checker.

[robin-raymond]

recommend typedef object Dictionary; so meaning is understood.