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

About the Mandatory constraints

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 18:34:01 +0000
To: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CF49DA0@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
There has been some discussion about mandatory constraints again lately
in the context of constraints for the MediaStream Recorder.

I think the use of constraints for the Recorder is something we have not
really discussed yet, but I think (though I may be wrong) some mails
tended to question the need for mandatory constraints also for gUM.

Just to be clear: I think we have debated the mandatory constraints for
gUM several times, and we always come back to the same conclusion:
people want them. One use is when the app developer wants to avoid
disturbing the user, or even indicate e.g. that video communication is
possible, if the equipment does not fulfill the requirements the app
developer has.

Some people think it would be more natural to just get access to the
camera (and in the process launch a prompt), then check what it can
fulfill the needs, and if not tell the user that "sorry, your camera is
not good enough". But those developers can skip using mandatory constraints.

Let's not debate if we need mandatory constraints or not for gUM again.
I think it would be much more fruitful if we could have the details in
Constrainable reviewed for use with gUM and MediaStreamTracks. I would
be really happy we could nail a design that fulfills the needs we have
there.

Stefan

Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 18:34:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:24 UTC