I read the threads you referenced and the latest spec, and I think you're absolutely right about everything :-).
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Karl Tomlinson <mozn...@karlt.net> wrote: > Thank you for taking a look, Boris. I'm quite unclear how any of > the changes proposed in the [[March F2F resolution]] comment would > resolve the issue, and so I expect not. > > [[March F2F resolution]] > https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/1471# > issuecomment-376223916 I wonder what that resolution entails since the spec changes haven't happened yet. However, it sounds like it's heading in the wrong direction. Rather than trying to fix the description of AudioNode lifetimes, the entire section should be deleted. He does seem to have misunderstood that there is a problem to fix. > But I assume the way forward here is to help the WG find a > solution that works. What is the advantage of explaining the > situation to Alex? > AIUI If you can't convince someone on the WG that there is problem to fix, but you can convince someone on the TAG, then they can require the WG to fix it. I'm happy to query the F2F resolution, but I wonder which is the > best way to resolve this. > > Is having web specifications try to describe object lifetimes > helpful, or is it just over-prescribing? > I think it's very dangerous. If those descriptions are normative then it's easy to accidentally make GC observable. If they're not normative then they confuse implementors and users into accidentally treating them as normative. Should specifications instead just focus on observable behavior, > and leave it to implementations to optimize and to reclaim > resources that are no longer required? > Yes. People need to understand that GC is purely an optimization. Perhaps it would be best to just have an informative section > explaining design decisions made for the sake of making resource > reclamation possible, such as lack of graph introspection. Perhaps > it would also be helpful to have some informative reminders to > implementations re what GC must not affect. > Yes. > If the whole normative AudioNode lifetime section were dropped > then this would clearly be an implementation issue rather than a > spec issue. > Yes! Maybe I can help by writing a blog post or something... Rob -- Su ot deraeppa sah dna Rehtaf eht htiw saw hcihw, efil lanrete eht uoy ot mialcorp ew dna, ti ot yfitset dna ti nees evah ew; deraeppa efil eht. Efil fo Drow eht gninrecnoc mialcorp ew siht - dehcuot evah sdnah ruo dna ta dekool evah ew hcihw, seye ruo htiw nees evah ew hcihw, draeh evah ew hcihw, gninnigeb eht morf saw hcihw taht. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
