W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Syntax of new constraint proposal

From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 07:40:46 -0400
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2C7246A4-BA40-4A58-ADF8-B991445E32CD@voxeo.com>
To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>

On May 19, 2014, at 1:32 AM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:

> On 5/18/2014 10:29 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> I've been thinking of "advanced" as "fallback". The problem is that I think we decided to put the advanced stuff first, which is immensely unintuitive to me. 
> 
> The advanced stuff is deterministic, while the non-required stuff is less so (UA-ordered), was the reasoning, so put the deterministic stuff first to keep it deterministic.
> 
> In practice only a masochist would use both ways of entering optional constraints in the same call, as the difference is marginal. Advanced gives you more control, it is not a fallback, in my mind.

The difference is not marginal, but I agree that advanced gives you more control.  It is not a fallback at all, but something for more precise control when the developer is ready for it.

> 
> .: Jan-Ivar :.
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 11:41:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:24:47 UTC