W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Syntax options for constraints structure

From: Timothy B. Terriberry <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 14:28:52 -0700
Message-ID: <4FAD8494.7030303@mozilla.com>
To: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Anant Narayanan wrote:
> In other words, I don't see what the use case is for specifying
> conflicting constraints within the same set. Note that sets can contain

The JS doesn't necessarily know what is going to conflict, as this may 
be a property of the hardware, etc. The reason for having a well-defined 
ordering of _all_ constraints is to allow the UA to use a very simple 
algorithm for conflict resolution, regardless of which constraints 
happen to conflict. This avoids the need to use a full-blown constraint 
solver, which can get messy in a hurry (and give the user surprising 
results).
Received on Friday, 11 May 2012 21:29:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:14:59 GMT