W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > November 2013

Re: [Bug 23933] Proposal: Change constraints to use WebIDL dictionaries

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 12:37:06 -0500
Message-ID: <52977F42.7030308@bbs.darktech.org>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 28/11/2013 2:51 AM, bugzilla@jessica.w3.org wrote:
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23933
>
> Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> changed:
>
>             What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Summary|Change constraints to use   |Proposal: Change
>                     |WebIDL dictionaries         |constraints to use WebIDL
>                     |                            |dictionaries
>
> --- Comment #2 from Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> ---
> (In reply to Gili from comment #1)
>> Just to be clear: the implication of this proposal is that users will need
>> to ask for a set of constraints, but then they will have to check that the
>> returned device meets those constraints (because some of them may have been
>> omitted as "unknown").
> That is not true really. Since the proposal also includes a method that allows
> the app to probe for what constraints that the UA understands, it can first
> check, and if one or more constraints the app wants to use as mandatory are not
> known by the UA the app can at that stage decide to not go ahead and call gUM.
>

In light of that fact, I don't understand the benefit of ignoring 
unknown constraints. If the user has the ability to detect unknown 
constraints and *still* insists on passing them into getUserMedia() 
shouldn't we fire the error listener? As far as I can tell, this is no 
longer a question of enabling backwards compatibility.

Gili
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2013 17:38:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:24:43 UTC