[whatwg] several messages about the naming of the loop attributes
Ian Hickson
ian at hixie.ch
Fri Oct 26 16:01:59 PDT 2007
Bikeshed alert.
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Michael A. Puls II wrote:
> >
> > Maybe we should rename 'loopcount' to 'playcount'...?
>
> playcount fits better with "the number of times to play the clip" than
> loopcount does.
Ok. Done.
> > Hmm. Is the spec really ambigious?
>
> Here's an example: [...]
What you're saying is that the attribute name is non-intuitive, not that
the spec is ambiguous.
I agree. Changed as noted above.
> Now, I am suggesting:
>
> loopCount -> playCount
> currentLoop -> playIndex || currentPlayIndex || currentPlayCountIndex
I have left this one for now. I don't like index, for reasons discussed
below.
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Simon Pieters wrote:
>
> I don't have an opinion about naming in general, but I will note that
> .playIndex is consistent with <select>'s .selectedIndex.
For me this counts as a point against -- the selectedIndex identifies an
item in a list, whereas here we are identifying a general period of time.
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Dave Singer wrote:
>
> I have wondered whether it would be clearer if we called it loopFrom and
> loopTo, and had loopCount be the count of the *extra* plays, and
> loopNumber (or loopIndex) the current *extra* play. So if loopCount is
> 0, loopStart and loopEnd are irrelevant, and loopNumber will never
> exceed 0 either.
I don't think loopFrom and loopTo is necessarily better than loopStart and
loopEnd.
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Randy Drielinger wrote:
>
> The terminoly we currently have is the one that's being used in the
> Video / Editting branch.
>
> Although they don't sound too logical, we could keep these (thus making
> it more consistent definition-wise) or perhaps pursue another name set
> from an area and adapt those. I don't favor creating a new named set to
> make things clear only for HTML5.0 sake.
Are you ok with the new names?
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Dave Singer wrote:
>
> yes, and clarifying that there is a straight play from start to end, and
> then loopCount extra plays from loopStart to loopEnd, counted by
> loopNumber. The same names with repeat instead of loop would also work.
>
> is that clearer, easier to explain and understand? so a loopCount of 0
> means no loops, just the straight play. loopNumber 0 means we have not
> yet looped.
I'm not sure that loopCount = 0 is clearer than playCount = 1. In fact I
think people get confused over loopCount too much, however it works.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg
mailing list