Re: WebIDL-compatible syntax compromise

On 4/2/14 7:48 AM, Dan Burnett wrote:
> Regarding examples, it will probably be useful to show increasing complexity, i.e.,
> - an example with only non-required constraints
> - one with required and non-required constraints
> - one with required and advanced constraints
> - one with all 3 kinds

Agree, but lets start with the least complex of all:

- an example with only audio:true and/or video:true
- an example with only non-required constraints
- one with required and non-required constraints
- one with required and advanced constraints

I would end on advanced constraints and leave out the esoteric "one with all 3 kinds" example. The fact that it works (and how) I think matters mostly to implementers rather than users, and seems clear enough in the current prose for those who truly desire to experiment.

.: Jan-Ivar :.

Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2014 15:04:11 UTC