Re: Constraints and MediaRecorder

That is a bit of a strict interpretation.

Surely there is room for improving the API's usability without needing 
new use-cases? There are plenty of ways to address our current set of 
use-cases. That doesn't mean that we should remain fixated on a 
particular API if a better design comes along.

Gili

On 09/02/2014 5:49 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:49 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com 
> <mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote:
>
>     I'm surprised to hear you put it this way. You mean that there
>     might be
>     some value you could indicate in the API but that you can't determine
>     if you got because the WG had decided you didn't have a good enough
>     use case for that? Why is that a good idea?
>
>
> Because we don't add features that don't have use-cases.
>
> 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 *
> *