Re: Missing definitions for parameters in MediaTrackCapabilties/MediaTrackConstraints? from Martin Thomson on 2015-04-21 (public-media-capture@w3.org from April 2015)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 12:46:44 -0700
To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUcO=fsQDfxhFYS5zP79KG_qj6cmAjRz2QuHd8G6RMHKg@mail.gmail.com>

On 21 April 2015 at 12:23, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote:
> How does having a registry prevent all that? It seems incumbent on any new
> spec (from w3c or elsewhere) extending the mediaStream API, to document new
> constraints and to do so in WebIDL (with partial dictionary etc).

Harald is perhaps concerned about different forks coordinating with
each other.  That is the usual role of a registry.  Given that this is
an API implemented by a small set of browsers, I don't see that being
an issue in practice.  Also, we have this task force/working group
thing that likely serves in the coordination role.

Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2015 19:47:11 UTC