- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 10:30:17 +0000
- To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 21/03/14 16:59, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> On 3/21/14 10:47 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Thanks, glad you like it!
>
>> 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
>
> It is clear to the UA, but I think your concern is clarity to a
> reader. You can of course write:
>
> navigator.getUserMedia({video:true, aspectRatio: 4/3}
I think Dom has a point; it is not completely clear to me how I would
request different combinations of audio and video, with and without
constraints applied to the request, e.g. audio (no constraints) + video
(e.g. mandatory frameRate, optional width) etc.
Received on Sunday, 23 March 2014 10:30:42 UTC