- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:02:48 +0000
- To: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- CC: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 2014-02-11 10:51, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no > <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote: > > It started out with a review of the current proposal for the writeup of > the constraint mechanism. So far, we've had a lot of discussion (mainly > among J-I, roc and myself) about whether it's worth abstracting that > away from the use case it was originally created for (getUserMedia, > where I think we have rough consensus to keep it more or less exactly > as-is), > > > In my message "More thoughts on Constraints, and a proposal", I > described some objections to the Constraints abstraction being used > anywhere, including getUserMedia. You did, and there was a couple of "+1" responses. But given the how long Constraints has been in the document, and how many times we've iterated over it, and how many that are silent, I think there is no consensus for replacing Constraints. The merits of making a separate interface of it can be debated, but that is a separate question we can conclude later when we know more of its applicability in other specs IMO. Stefan > > Rob > -- > Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny > eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha > iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e > tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea > lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * > *
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 15:03:13 UTC