- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 03:03:35 -0500
- To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 09/11/2013 2:58 AM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> But I agree you still can't combine requirements, and I find the logic
> hard to read to boot.
>
> I proposed an alternative here
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2013Oct/0069.html
> (near bottom).
>
> The whole thing is just an (AND)OR array of alternative requirements:
>
> [
> { width: 1920, height: 1080 },
> { width: { max: 1920 }, height: { max: 1080 } },
> ]
>
> IMHO simpler (no mandatory/optional), easier to read, easier to
> implement, and more expressive.
>
> .: Jan-Ivar :.
+1
I've never understood the benefit of splitting constraints into
mandatory/optional. The format you mentioned should suffice.
Gili
Received on Saturday, 9 November 2013 08:04:05 UTC