- From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:35:23 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 2013-11-10 02:31, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 9 November 2013 13:34, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: >> One property this has is that the sequence of entries in "devices" >> controls the selection of device; in the original constraint-based >> selection algorithm, the device that satisfied the longest list of >> optional constraints would "win". >> >> Perhaps we should think of adding a "rankOnConstraints" function to >> deviceInfo? > > The code was provided merely to be illustrative. My expectation is > that browsers will use their greater access to information about > devices to do a much better job of implementing gUM. Adding more info > to the API just increases the fingerprinting surface. I'd argue that > the ranking probably wouldn't do any good, though a stable ordering > might. > If we go with this, then I think it would be appropriate to have different types representing input and output devices. The new methods proposed would only be available on the input device type. /Adam
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 09:35:51 UTC