- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 14:13:26 -0400
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 12/05/2014 1:47 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > On 05/12/2014 05:55 PM, cowwoc wrote: >> On 12/05/2014 8:54 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >>> In the current version of the spec, we have: >>> >>> The getCapabilities() method returns the dictionary of the >>> capabilities that the object supports. >>> >>> This means that one must get an object before one can get >>> capabilities of it. This is inconvenient for some usages (deciding >>> what to pass to getUserMedia is the obvious one). >>> >>> Should this method also be available as a static method? >>> >>> Harald >> >> -1: I'm in favor of leaving this as an instance-only method. >> >> Gili >> > Why? > > What do you suggest as an alternate method for detecting availability > of capabilities before the first call to getUserMedia? Sorry, I hit submit too quickly. I was going to ask you to elaborate on how you saw this working for getUserMedia(). Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant. My understanding was that you wanted classes to have both a static and instance method. If so, I would be -1 on that and would favor classes having either of the two but never both at the same time. I don't see the need for classes to have both and think that doing so would be confusing to developers. On a higher level, I'm in favor of allowing developers to enumerate devices and their capabilities without prompting for user permission. I view getUserMedia() as the act of "opening" the devices I am interested in, which would prompt the user for permission. Gili
Received on Monday, 12 May 2014 18:13:55 UTC