This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 18176 - Consider making the argument optional for start() and end(). Many tutorials omit the argument, and think it means start of first range for start() and end of last range for end(). Maybe we should just make the API do what people expect.
Summary: Consider making the argument optional for start() and end(). Many tutorials o...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P2 enhancement
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: This bug has no owner yet - up for the taking
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-07-18 17:32 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2015-08-24 19:54 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description contributor 2012-07-18 17:32:58 UTC 
This was was cloned from bug 17139 as part of operation convergence.
Originally filed: 2012-05-21 14:44:00 +0000

================================================================================
 #0   contributor@whatwg.org                          2012-05-21 14:44:05 +0000 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-video-element.html
Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#time-ranges
Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#time-ranges

Comment:
Consider making the argument optional for start() and end(). Many tutorials
omit the argument, and think it means start of first range for start() and end
of last range for end(). Maybe we should just make the API do what people
expect.

Posted from: 85.227.154.145 by simonp@opera.com
User agent: Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7.3; U; en) Presto/2.10.229 Version/11.64
================================================================================
Comment 1 Edward O'Connor 2012-10-02 23:49:38 UTC 
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:

   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: No spec change.
Rationale: Let's consider this for HTML.next.
Comment 2 Robin Berjon 2013-01-21 15:59:28 UTC 
Mass move to "HTML WG"
Comment 3 Robin Berjon 2013-01-21 16:02:14 UTC 
Mass move to "HTML WG"
Comment 4 Michael[tm] Smith 2015-06-17 06:36:17 UTC 
Paging Simon. I note that Hixie wontfixed the corresponding WHATWG bug. Do you want to keep this one open?
Comment 5 Simon Pieters 2015-08-24 19:54:33 UTC 
no