- From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:47:06 -0800
- To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- CC: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 2/11/14 7:02 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote: > On 2014-02-11 10:51, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >> 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 no real counter-arguments. > 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. If silence means no, then one might ask why we have constraints in the first place. I would be careful to interpret silence as anything but indifference, perhaps to the whole constraints pattern. I don't think most people care enough to bother until it affects them. I piped in once I tried to implement it. Roc became vocal when he saw what it would do to the MediaRecorder api. I think that is natural. > 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. Is that a vote to fold Constrainable back into gUM in the interim? .: Jan-Ivar :. > > 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 16:47:33 UTC