On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote: > I’ve pretty much lost track of what you are proposing we do. You are > proposing we just ask the browser for a stream, it gives us whatever it > wants, and then the app uses the setting API to figure out what the browser > provided ? Mostly I just care that I have some way of doing this but I > agree with Roc that not having to loop over a trial / test type interface > makes more sense to me. > I think you misread me there, or maybe I wasn't clear. Sorry. I favor looping in the application if it means a simpler API. Anyway, if a "request and check" interface is adequate for MediaRecorder, then we simplify things by just providing it directly instead of indirecting through the Constraints spec --- e.g. by providing direct getters on MediaRecorder for MIME type and image size instead of introducing a MediaRecorderSettings object. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o wReceived on Monday, 3 February 2014 22:41:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:24 UTC