W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Overconstrained

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:14:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXJ332WhLn-f6GOZvhZP9zc6zh2DvGKfnyPZuX9KcmP4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Cc: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 26 March 2013 03:45, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com> wrote:
> On 2013-03-25 18:35, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> I would like to propose that we remove optional constraints.
>>
>> Sure, it's relatively easy to contrive examples, but I don't believe
>> that there is anything that a real-world application would unable to
>> do using a mandatory-only constraints API.
>
> [...]  We
> can't mimic the effect a second run of optional constraints would have on
> those cameras unless we return both cameras to the app and run the
> JS-version of the optional constraints as described above.

This is exactly the sort of contrivance I was talking about.  Sure, we
can prove, mathematically, that mandatory-only produces fewer points
of articulation, but are you aware of a case where this results in a
real problem?

The idea of optional constraints makes even less sense in light of
Harald's UI proposal.  If we grant access to all input devices by
convention, then this problem becomes academic.

I don't care to solve purely academic problems...at least when I'm on the clock.
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:14:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:15 UTC