- From: Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 09:17:18 -0400
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Yes, this is the logic of the current proposal: deterministic stuff first, followed by non-deterministic stuff, along with the assumption that few developers would want to use both. There's no concept of "fallback" in the design, just one of degrees of control (and, admittedly, complexity). On 5/19/2014 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. > > .: Jan-Ivar :. > > -- Jim Barnett Genesys
Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 13:18:25 UTC