- From: Josh Soref <jsoref@rim.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:48:53 +0000
- To: Media Capture <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Jim wrote: > Don't optional constraints handle the case where the developer would like to > have a certain feature, but is willing to make do if it's not available? The concern is that developers will naively use mandatory instead of optional constraints 99% of the time. A goal should be to ensure that on average developers do the right thing, and that on average users are able to use services. It should not be to force browser vendors to deviate from the specification in order to enable their users to use poorly designed services. An example of the wrong thing happening is web sites using -webkit-foo and forcing non -webkit- browsers to seriously consider implementing -webkit-foo support. That's roughly a form of "lying" about the browser. Most Browsers these days support forging UA strings because web sites do silly sniffing based on it. Having to lie about mandatory requested features in order to enable a device to work with a service would be unfortunate. --------------------------------------------------------------------- This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2012 15:49:27 UTC