- From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 11:12:30 -0400
- To: Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
- CC: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 3/23/14 9:06 AM, Jim Barnett wrote: > +1. The current constraints proposal satisfies a number of requirements that we have elaborated in repeated and extensive discussions. Would it be useful to re-summarize those exact requirements at this juncture? .: Jan-Ivar :. > I'm strongly opposed to removing it. > > Jim > >> On Mar 22, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote: >> >> >>> On Mar 21, 2014, at 8:47 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >> GUM does not meet it uses cases without this - I will be very strongly opposed to LC of any version of GUM where it is effectively useless for many of the important use cases. >>
Received on Sunday, 23 March 2014 15:12:58 UTC