- From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 15:07:41 -0400
- To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On Apr 2, 2014, at 2:05 PM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> On 2014-04-02 18:23, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> On 04/02/2014 06:05 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
>>> On 4/2/14 11:28 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>>> 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}]
>>>> }
>>>
>>> This is no worse than in the existing spec, but yes, you probably hit
>>> the simplest need for advanced right there, since we can't write:
>>>
>>> var constraints = {
>>> required: "width",
>>> width: {min: 230, max: 1024},
>>> width: 640, // error: object property repeat!
>>> };
>>>
>>> Would people be open to (re)consider the 'ideal' extension?
>>>
>>> var constraints = {
>>> required: "width",
>>> width: {min: 230, max: 1024, ideal: 640},
>>> };
>>
>> I'd be open to reconsidering that once we've declared consensus for a
>> single proposal and put it into the document..... I see some nice things
>> about "ideal", but regard it as a separable concern.
>
> +1 to both statements.
>
>
I'd rather first discuss special values for all range properties of "highestPossible", "lowestPossible", or something similar, as suggested by Sylvia at TPAC. Again, though, that can wait for consensus on the current compromise constraint proposal.
-- dan
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2014 19:08:07 UTC