Re: Constraints 2014

Hi Jan-Ivar,

On mer., 2014-03-19 at 19:50 -0400, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> We can change constraints to use WebIDL again while preserving
> baseline functionality.
> 
> Basically, we fix the syntax without changing the semantics of
> constraints (much):

Thanks for your proposal.

I find the syntax of that alternative approach vastly better (easier to
read and write), and I like the simplified semantics. The WebIDL-based
approach also feels like it will get us better consistency among
implementations, and it also paves the way for clean extensibility.
Finally, it is compatible with most of the code deployed today.

What I'm more worried about:
* the piece that infer media type from a specific constraint; I don't
think that navigator.getUserMedia({aspectRatio: 4/3} clearly conveys
you're requesting video
* more generally, it's guaranteed there will be lots of things to be
worked out in detail given how different the proposal is — our existing
constraints seem closer to to a stage where they could get implemented
and deployed

I think I might be convinced to switch to this new approach, if we work
it out separately from the main getUserMedia spec; in other words, we
would freeze (e.g. move to LC) the current getUserMedia without any
constraints (but for the basic video, audio, peerIdentity), and move the
constraints stuff into a separate spec where we can work out in details
the algorithms, edge cases, etc.

If the work on the new constraints prove to move fast enough, we could
always consider merging it back in.

Dom

Received on Friday, 21 March 2014 14:47:21 UTC