Re: WebIDL-compatible syntax compromise

Been thinking about this a while. Overall, I understand the goals here but
it still seems complicated to express the common use case of "please give
me HD, but definitely no less than VGA". As I understand it, this would be
done via:

  {
    require: ["width", "height"],
    width: {min: 640},
    height: {min: 480},
    prefer: [{width: 1280, height: 720}]
  }

which is OK, but I think this would be more understandable as

  {
    require: { width: {min: 640}, height: {min: 480} },
    prefer: [{width: 1280, height: 720}]
  }

which alas, seems like the syntax we already have, e.g.

 {
    mandatory: { width: {min: 640}, height: {min: 480} },
    optional: [{width: 1280, height: 720}]
  }

What am I missing here?


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Steev James <steev.a.james@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Preferred" seems to be good instead of advanced.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>wrote:
>
>> On mar., 2014-04-01 at 21:17 -0400, Dan Burnett wrote:
>> > At the teleconference last week we were tasked with finding a way to
>> > adjust the current constraint syntax in the specification, without
>> > loss of expressivity, into a syntax that was WebIDL-compatible.  We
>> > may have done one better.
>> >
>> > We have found a workable compromise.
>>
>> Thanks guys, this look quite good!
>>
>> My only comment is similar to one that others have made: I think
>> "advanced" is not very descriptive; I'm thinking maybe
>> "preferredProfiles" or something like that might be clearer. But I don't
>> feel strongly at all about it, and I'm happy to leave this to the
>> editors discretion as far as I am concerned.
>>
>> Dom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>