RE: Why ignoring unknown mandatory constraints is not stupid

I think that getSupportedConstraints would need to be separate from capabilities(), since the latter function also returns the supported ranges/values for the properties.  If you have multiple cameras,  the UA should support the same constraints for all of them, but they may have different ranges for image size, etc.

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 10:06 AM
To: Jim Barnett; Stefan Håkansson LK; public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: Re: Why ignoring unknown mandatory constraints is not stupid

On 11/19/2013 02:59 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:
> For getSupportedConstraints, we should think about the details a bit - there may be many Constrainable classes that the UA knows about (MediaRecorder, etc.), so this function would have to return values for all of them.  In many cases, this won't be useful because capabilities() gives you the same information once you have an instance of the class, and getting an instance is normally not an issue.  It's only with Tracks and gUM that you want to find out what constraints are supported before you get an instance.

I thought getSupportedConstraints() was a proposed rename of the Capabilities attribute, but I may have misunderstood that. It could be a static method on the class; I agree that it's not useful as a free-floating thing, since there are multiple Constrainable classes.

Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2013 15:18:08 UTC