On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > 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. > Even if we grant the antecedent, I don't think the implication follows. 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] > I think the downsides of Constraints are present for gUM as well as MediaRecorder, but possibly the use-cases for gUM justify the complexity. Also, the cost of creating a MediaRecorder you don't want can be made very low, which makes certain kinds of capability testing easier. That's less true with gUM. 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 w
Received on Monday, 3 February 2014 23:00:53 UTC