Re: Extensibility for constraints and registry

On 11/22/13 6:47 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> On 2013-11-21 09:14, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>> * while coming up with a name is easy, ensuring that a given constraint
>> fits the spec model (which we're still struggling with) requires time,
>> expertise and consensus; this group seems like a better fit for such a
>> review than a TBD-expert. The frequently used example of "3d camera" as
>> a constraint illustrates this: it's not clear to me that a constraint
>> would be the right approach to handle 3d cameras, since what you would
>> want to get out of it is probably very different from a video stream;
>> figuring out the model of how to extend getUserMedia to new use cases
>> should be made thoughtfully, esp. as we have so little experience with
>> it at this time.
>>
>> [...]
>> My concrete proposal to replace what is currently in the spec would be
>> thus:
>> * remove the IANA registry registration from the spec
>> * remove mentions of the registry in the spec
>> * add a note to implementors in the spec encouraging them to bring
>> proposals of new constraints to this group, and to not make new
>> constraints available publicly (i.e. without a flag) until two
>> independent implementations of such a constraint have surfaced
>> (mimicking the CSS WG policy)
> I have not thought a lot about this, but to me this proposal makes
> sense. Other opinions?

Makes a lot of sense to me. This is what we're doing for stats already.

.: Jan-Ivar :.

>
> Stefan
>
>> Dom
>>
>> 1. http://www.w3.org/2013/11/14-mediacap-minutes.html#item07

Received on Saturday, 23 November 2013 03:20:54 UTC