Re: WebIDL-compatible syntax compromise

On 04/02/2014 02:23 PM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> On 2014-04-02 13:48, Dan Burnett wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 2:06 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks a lot for working out this proposal!
>>>
>>> I like it.
>>>
>>> Just for confirmation: getCapabilities, getConstraints and
>>> getSettings would work as today (no changes compared to the Ed's
>>> draft)?
>> getCapabilities and getSettings should be unchanged.  I'll have to
>> think about getConstraints, but off the top of my head it will either
>> be able to remain the same or it will return this new structure.
> It should probably return the new structure.
>
The old structure doesn't exist any more, so the new structure will have
to be returned.
I think the new structure is appropriate enough for this usage.

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.

Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2014 14:07:55 UTC