- From: jan-ivar via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 20:54:46 +0000
- To: public-media-capture-logs@w3.org
This language is definitely in the right direction, but still lacks an unequivocal statement that constraints are properties of the caller. They're demands, or asks. We need language guided by clear definitions here or readers wont stand a chance. For instance, "constraints" are *not* a feature, nor IMHO the (data)type for things like "width", "height", frameRate" etc. Those are capabilities that the UA implements and lets callers place constraints on. A caller's constraints are expressed as limits put on individual capabilities of the browser. For instance, "Constraints are exposed on tracks", sounds like inherent track-information is revealed to callers, when this information comes *from* callers. Tracks merely remember the constraints put on them by callers, as a convenience, and what you already know can't be "exposed" to you. See also my comment on #116 where I link to (admittedly scant) list-support for focusing on capabilities in the gUM narrative. -- GitHub Notif of comment by jan-ivar See https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/pull/61#issuecomment-70159753
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2015 20:55:00 UTC