W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Constraints as a separate interface

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 13:42:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUaPCXUKTFKhpv0_cHw+XdgLp12xsnoG16UxV0m72uY1w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Cc: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Not that I have much time to look, but why is the return value from
contraints() nullable?  I'd have thought that it would always be
possible to return an set of mandatory constraints and an empty list
of optional constraint sets.

On 6 October 2013 15:09, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com> wrote:
> Here’s an attempt to separate constraints out into a separate interface.
> The point is to allow other specs, such as MediaRecorder, to refer to it and
> ensure that they are all using constraints consistently.  This does _not_
> change the semantics of constraints, it would just break them out into a
> separate interface.  This interface would still be defined in the
> MediaCapture spec, but in a separate section.  (There would be editorial
> changes throughout the spec to refer to this interface, but, again, the
> semantics of Tracks and Streams wouldn’t change.)
> -          Jim
Received on Monday, 7 October 2013 20:43:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:20 UTC