On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote: > I feel like we're just re-fighting the battle about mandatory > constraints. > As far as I can tell, there was general consensus to stay with the > existing mandatory/optional constraint structure for gUM. > > I realize that there are a number of people who were in the rough > on that discussion, and are no happier about it here, but unless > there are some arguments that apply in particular to > MediaRecorder and *not* to gUM, then there seems like > a pretty strong consistency argument for using the same style > throughout the specification. > > > This is about using Constrainable in MediaRecorder, which several of us > argue is a bad idea > Yes, I understand this point. Hence the sentence above containing the words "in particular to MediaRecorder and *not* to gUM". My point is that MediaRecorder is quite a bit more like gUM than it is like RTCPeerConnection and so the same reasoning which kept it in gUM equally well applies to MediaRecorder. So, again, I ask what argument do you have for why constraints are bad for MediaRecorder that don't equally well apply to gUM? [0] -Ekr [0] I note that Martin above raises the issue of device contention, but I don't think that's material.
Received on Monday, 3 February 2014 22:09:32 UTC