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

Re: Bare constraint values - KISS

From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 17:19:57 -0400
Cc: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F304E763-25F7-40FF-A746-DD98B34B6B6F@voxeo.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>

On Jul 11, 2014, at 7:27 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:

> On 11 July 2014 16:24, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:
>> Any others?  Which do you prefer?
> None of the above.  Don't solve problems if you don't have to.
> ...getUserMedia({audio: false, video: false, application: true}, ...)
> is OK.
> ...getUserMedia({audio: false, video: true, source:
> "application|livecapture"}, ...)
> is a little better again.
> All my opinion, of course.

Thanks Martin.  It might be helpful for me to give some more history here.  Originally the constraint *names* included the media type (and min/max), e.g. "video-width-min".  I don't remember *who* requested it (I vaguely think it was Anant again), but there was very strong consensus to "make the syntax more JS-like", with strong pressure to move the media type of audio/video up to the top level.  One concern I had at the time was that we might eventually want a different sort of top-level grouping, but the consensus was exceedingly strong to do this.

I thus agree that it would make sense to have a top-level indication of source type, but I also strongly dislike mixing media types and the meta value of "source" at the top level.  Despite my internal conflict, if adding "source" to the top level gets us done faster by not undoing the Interim's consensus decisions I'm all for it.
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 21:20:17 UTC

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