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

Re: Bare constraint values - KISS

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 16:24:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUFSs4_3EeVQmaKtLEqc8AKk6C-9fONtbQQTFP0b0LyggA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
It sounds more like your problem is about what "video: {mediaSource:
'application'}" means (you don't want it to be non-exact), not that they
have to write "video: {mediaSource: {exact: 'application'}}".

What are our options?

1.  Make "video: {mediaSource: 'application'}" mean ideal/optional.  My
understanding is that you don't like this.
2.  Make "video: {mediaSource: 'application'}" an error, and require
"video: {mediaSource: {exact: 'application'}}".  It's still ugly, but less
error-prone.
3.  Make all bare values required.  I don't we can reach a consensus for
this option.
4.  Make some bare values required and others optional.  Could solve many
problems, but might be too confusing and surprising to use.

Any others?  Which do you prefer?



On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 11 July 2014 15:59, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:
> > Is {video: {mediaSource: {exact: "application"}}} really that bad for a
> JS
> > developer to write?
>
> Actually, yes.
>
> What I have a problem with more is the potential for this to be *not*
> exact.  I don't think that we have any use case where an application
> is uncertain over whether it wants powerpoint or your video camera.
> That just doesn't make sense to me.
>
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 23:25:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:28 UTC