Re: Conclusions from the constraints spec review

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Stefan Håkansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> On 2014-02-11 21:28, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
> > <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com
> > <mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     It becomes very difficult to make progress if we, in situation when
> we
> >     have had one design discussed and agreed to a long time ago, being in
> >     the draft for a long time, can't consider it as the baseline.
> >
> >
> > The Constrainable interface first appeared a little over 3 months ago.
> > Before that, constraints were in the draft via MediaTrackConstraints,
>
> That's correct, but Constraints with the same basic functionality as
> today appeared in the 2012-08-13 version
> (http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/archives/20120813/getusermedia.html
> ).
> That is 17 months ago.
>

I have to disagree that that draft has "the same basic functionality as
today". It doesn't mention min/max and defines no semantics at all.

However, if you're willing to work with that loose a definition of "same
basic functionality", I'm confident I can extend my counter-proposal to
cover gUM in a way that also has the same basic functionality.

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