W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > April 2014

Re: WebIDL-compatible syntax compromise

From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:44:38 -0400
Message-ID: <533C3066.6000404@mozilla.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, public-media-capture@w3.org
On 4/2/14 11:28 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> As I understand the proposal, one would use "advanced" constraints only
> when one wanted to give further guidance to the browser after the
> required and non-required constraints had been applied

The application order is: required first, then advanced, then non-required. This gives the most deterministic behavior.

I see non-required and advanced as two ways to express optional constraints, the main difference being that one is ordered and more expressive.

So in my mind, someone would switch to advanced when they want more control and more expressive power (i.e. advanced users).

The mixing of ordered and non-ordered seems esoteric, since having both necessitates an order (no pun intended).

.: Jan-Ivar :.

>   - so it would be
> natural for the last example to have more than just "advanced" - the
> typical "I must have a size in this range but would really prefer that
> size" example could be expressed as
>
> constraints = {
>     required: "width",
>     width: {min: 230, max: 1024},
>     advanced: [{width: 640}]
> }
>
> BTW: I don't like the name "advanced" (what do we do if we need
> something even more complex) - perhaps we could call it "refinements"?
>
> constraints = {
>     width: {min: 230, max: 1024},
>     refinements: [{width: 640}]
> }
>
>
>


-- 
.: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2014 15:44:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:25 UTC