- From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 20:27:27 -0500
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 11/20/13 12:26 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 20 November 2013 08:17, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> Shouldn't we first nail down what min and max mean? e.g.
> This I agree with. But the answer might not be as deterministic as
> you might like.
>
>> - Does { mandatory: { width: { min: 1024 } } } give me 1024x768
>> or the highest available because I didn't constrain upward?
>>
>> - Does { mandatory: { width: { max: 2880 } } } give me 2880x1800
>> or the lowest available because I didn't constrain downward?
>>
>> - what does { mandatory: { width: { min: 1024, max: 2880 } } } give me?
> The answer to these is universally, "I don't know". And I think that
> I am perfectly comfortable with that.
I don't share that comfort. This is the language we give apps to describe their wants and needs in. Isn't it preferable that it be expressive and unambiguous?
> I don't think that having additional preferences is necessary. That
> is the function that optional constraints fulfill already. Having
> more ways to influence the selection algorithm is only going to make
> it harder to build and understand. I worry that we are already in
> that situation; let's not make it worse.
Right, min and max are equally duplicative, yet improve readability quite a bit. Should we remove them?
Knowing the native resolution of a device seems useful, and 'prefer' can be reused here.
> (Actually, I do like the "prefer" suggestion. But it's duplicative,
> so I'd be interested only if you also remove optional constraints at
> the same time. I consider that to be an unlikely outcome at this
> stage.)
See my constraints proposal.
.: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2013 01:27:54 UTC