- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:24:55 +0100
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 11/05/2013 06:20 PM, bugzilla@jessica.w3.org wrote: > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22209 > > Giri Mandyam <mandyam@quicinc.com> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |mandyam@quicinc.com > > --- Comment #5 from Giri Mandyam <mandyam@quicinc.com> --- > We discussed vendor-specific constraints during the F2F at TPAC 2012 > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Dec/att-0196/minutes-2012-10-30.html). > > I believe what reflected consensus was that vendor-specific constraints be > added to the IANA registry, which would allow such constraints to undergo > expert review as per RFC 5226. We can reconfirm this at the next F2F however. > > On a related note, I do believe the spec is unclear as to what the > implementation should do when a valid IANA-registered vendor-specific > constraint is provided to MediaStreamTrack.applyConstraints() that the > implementation does not recognize or support. I assume an exception can be > raised, but I did not find specific guidance in the latest working draft. The > constrainable interface proposal also defines an error callback on > applyConstraints(). > I believe the desired behaviour is 100% clear. If the constraint is mandatory, the applyConstraints() fails. If the constraint is optional, the constraint is ignored. Jan-Ivar and I have been exchanging mail on how to express that in WebIDL form. -- Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2013 17:25:29 UTC