Re: A proposal for getUserMedia constraints based on the consensus reached in the DC interim

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:10 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>  I understand you're trying to summarize the consensus. The following
> questions are meant to give ideas for future revisions:
>
>    1. The opposite of "optional" is "exact"? :) How about "required"?
>
> ​We reached consensus on the word "exact", so I'm happy to stick with
that.​

>
>    1.
>    2. Does it make sense to "require" one of multiple values instead of
>    just a single value? Example: I require one of X, Y, or Z (in that order of
>    preference).
>
> ​That's not possible with this WebIDL.  That might be advanced enough to
say "use advanced".  But that's open for debate.  It might be possible to
change the WebIDL proposed here to allow this, but now without some more
complexity.​

>
>    1.
>
> Gili
>
>
> On 09/06/2014 5:33 PM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>
>  Sorry, I wasn't clear.  I meant that the version that is commented would
> be optional (if it were written "facingMode": "environment")
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Nit:
>>
>> On 9 June 2014 14:08, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:
>> >   // "facingMode": "environment" would be optional.
>> >   facingMode: { exact: "environment" },
>>
>>  This means "environment or bust", not optional.
>>
>
>
>