- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:09:00 +0200
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 06/10/2014 05:41 PM, cowwoc wrote: > On 10/06/2014 10:18 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >> On 06/10/2014 03:12 PM, cowwoc wrote: >>> On 10/06/2014 6:42 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >>>> Some comments on thread: >>>> >>>> - I have come to like "advanced" because the name tells you "unless >>>> you've read the documentation, you have little chance of figuring >>>> out what goes on here". Sad in a way, but realistic, and useful. >>>> >>>> - "exact" is better than "required" because "min" and "max" are >>>> also required, so we shouldn't be using that word for something >>>> different >>> >>> I think you're missing the parameter name with its attributes, which >>> brings me to another point I didn't mention: consider flipping >>> "exact" and "environment" so "environment" can be assigned one or >>> more attributes, where "required" is one of them. This would >>> actually be more consistent with "min" and "max" in that the latter >>> will have an implicit "required" associated with them. >> >> Like Peter, I don't want to make changes just for the sake of making >> changes. >> What is the use case for which this will make a difference? >> >> (I can't parse the comment - "environment" is a value of the >> facingMode constraint, while "exact" is a token of the proposed >> syntax; flipping them doesn't make sense to me) > > Maybe it will help if we think of this in terms of HTML. Imagine that > "min" and "environment" are equivalent to HTML tags and they are > associated with attributes. I am saying we have: > > <min value="1024" required> > <environment value="true" required> > > If you look at it that way, "min" has an implicit attribute "required" > and environment has an implicit attribute value="true". > > Under the current modal, you have: > > <min value="1024" required> > <required value="environment"> > > which seems backward to me. I can't figure out what proposal you're referring to with that comment. It might be relevant to the proposal that's currently in the draft, but that was rejected at the Washington meeting, and we're not discussing it any more. The proposal that we're discussing now is the one Peter posted, which has no such thing as "required".
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2014 09:09:38 UTC