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

Re: Conclusions from the constraints spec review

From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:56:11 -0500
Message-ID: <52F661AB.7060707@mozilla.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
CC: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 2/8/2014 11:00 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com 
> <mailto:jib@mozilla.com>> wrote:
>
>     Constrainable was designed around gUM, and it has not been proven
>     to have general application. Quite the contrary, we keep finding
>     evidence it is specific to gUM.
>
>     Evidence:
>     - Mandatory constraints don't make sense when there's no
>     permission prompt.
>     - applyConstraints() pattern is only necessary when sharing resources.
>     - No other applications.
>
>     To repeat: Constrainable is only warranted when you're sharing
>     resources behind a permission prompt. Sound general?
>
>
> For the record, I don't believe agree with these statements.
>
> There are plenty of reasons why one would wish to have mandatory API
> points, not just for things behind a permissions promot.

Avoiding the permission prompt is what necessitates building the intent 
missile. Without that problem, it is much simpler and natural to ask, 
look at what you get and reject it, like roc says. Mandatory 
constraints, with their WebIDL headaches and confusing semantics 
favoring a non-webby fail-first approach [0], would not have survived 
discussion without the permission prompt problem.

.: Jan-Ivar :.

[0] aka ungraceful degradation - to borrow from roc's excellent post 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2014Feb/0039.html
Received on Saturday, 8 February 2014 16:56:48 UTC

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