- From: Elad Alon via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:46:31 +0000
- To: public-webrtc-logs@w3.org
> I think displaySurface is an odd case. Because it merely suggests which surface is to be displayed, it does not have the effect of a constraint. However it is a property of the resulting media track. > > To me it feels slightly strange to have displaySurface as a constraint, but then have something that controls which display surface e.g. the proposed monitorTypeSurfaces be an option. What do you think? I think `displaySurface` is a constraint for historical reasons. Namely, I think that it was originally intended to report what the user chose through `track.getSettings().displaySurface`. We have since also [specified](https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-screen-share/pull/186) a meaning for `displaySurface` as a constraint. This has since been implemented by some user agents (Chromium-based browsers) and is likely relied upon by Web developers. So I think we should stay away from changing this meaning, lest we unnecessarily break existing Web applications. Instead, I think it would be good to follow the pattern set forth by `selfBrowserSurface`, which is similar enough. That's my opinion, anyway. But perhaps we should discuss this on #261, and leave the current issue for discussions of `getSupportedOptions()`. -- GitHub Notification of comment by eladalon1983 Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-screen-share/issues/260#issuecomment-1481044828 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 23 March 2023 11:46:33 UTC