- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:14:57 -0500
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
I can't speak for others, but I've stayed quiet on the topic because I've been extra busy lately and haven't had time to dig into individual threads. I was keeping an eye out for a more concrete "option 1 vs option 2: which do you prefer?" email. If this came along, I must have missed it... Gili On 11/02/2014 10:02 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote: > On 2014-02-11 10:51, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no >> <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote: >> >> It started out with a review of the current proposal for the writeup of >> the constraint mechanism. So far, we've had a lot of discussion (mainly >> among J-I, roc and myself) about whether it's worth abstracting that >> away from the use case it was originally created for (getUserMedia, >> where I think we have rough consensus to keep it more or less exactly >> as-is), >> >> >> In my message "More thoughts on Constraints, and a proposal", I >> described some objections to the Constraints abstraction being used >> anywhere, including getUserMedia. > You did, and there was a couple of "+1" responses. > > But given the how long Constraints has been in the document, and how > many times we've iterated over it, and how many that are silent, I think > there is no consensus for replacing Constraints. > > The merits of making a separate interface of it can be debated, but that > is a separate question we can conclude later when we know more of its > applicability in other specs IMO. > > Stefan > >> 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 Tuesday, 11 February 2014 15:15:27 UTC