- From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:03:15 -0500
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, public-media-capture@w3.org
On 11/18/13 3:56 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 11/18/2013 09:36 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
>> On 11/17/13 11:40 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>> Done: If I'm doing an application whose only purpose is analyzing houses
>>> for isolation hotspots, getting a non-thermal camera will just mean that
>>> I have to make code paths to deal with "this is a camera, but the data
>>> I'm getting from it is completely nonsensical". I don't want to spend
>>> time doing that.
>> I'm not saying you have to. One line is all it takes:
>>
>> if (!browser.getSupportedConstraints().hasOwnProperty("thermal"))
>> return false;
>>
>> This is an app decision.
> By the same token, why should this developer (who write apps for thermal
> cameras only) be the one to do that, and not the one who can live with a
> visible-light camera when his application is written for a thermal?
>
> The getSupportedConstraints() actually makes things a lot easier when
> dealing with constraints that the browser may or may not know, no matter
> whether the WG eventually agrees with me or with Jan-Ivar.
Good point.
.: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 21:03:42 UTC