- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 08:37:51 +0100
- To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, public-media-capture@w3.org
On 03/13/2014 03:47 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote: > On 3/13/14 5:45 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >> One of the interesting things you've introduced in this proposal is >> representing attribute names as both strings and attributes, in order >> to implement the "require" and "prefer" methods. This is unstylish. > > I think it is stylish to follow the rules here. Dictionary keys being > inherently optional can't be used to fashion a requirement list, > because the browser wont see requirements it doesn't know. A string > survives. > > It also accomplishes the stated goal from our last teleconference, > which was to "make mandatory harder to use" (a poorly worded way of > saying "lets avoid people falling into mandatory and its sharp 'I mean > it!' edges by default). > >> Another interesting property is that you have lost the ability to >> propose an order in which to try alternative values for the same >> attribute. This is a loss of functionality. > > A loss in complexity that should affect no known use-cases, hence a win. What about the "I want camera A, if I can't get that, camera B" case? The introduction of "ideal" as a third member of a min-max structure is possible in either proposal, but is another complexity point; I think this proposal needs to be thought of separately.
Received on Friday, 14 March 2014 07:38:20 UTC