- From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 12:20:56 -0400
- To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
- CC: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 3/17/14 2:33 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> On 2014-03-15 23:29, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 14 March 2014 16:24, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
>>> Two optional constrains, the first one saying the source is A and the second one saying the source is B.
>> Or you could try this:
>>
>> navigator.getUserMedia({ 'sourceId': 'A' }, success, function() {
>> navigator.getUserMedia({ 'sourceId': 'B' }, success, failure);
>> });
> Hm. Would you not need to push in a "require: 'sourdeId'" in the first
> gUM? Otherwise it would be "prefer" and if treated like optional mean
> that gUM would succeed even if it could not be satisfied.
Correct, things are optional by default, so it would be:
navigator.getUserMedia({ sourceId: 'A', require: 'sourceId' }, succ, function(){
navigator.getUserMedia({ sourceId: 'B' }, succ, failure);
});
>> It seems like the example is basically contrived, so why not incur the
>> additional user prompt?
Yes, it is hard to judge what's acceptable when we don't root things in
real use-cases.
SourceId strikes me as the "anti-constraint", i.e. how one subverts the
normal process, so we should perhaps not design the normal process
around it?
.: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Monday, 17 March 2014 16:21:25 UTC