RE: New Editor's draft (v20140321)

Ø  Sorry, re-reading your post I see you said "avoid any UA-introduced processing delay". I hope you meant driver, or my answer makes no sense.

Actually - no, I did not mean driver.  I don't expect the UA to be able to be able to detect any kind of post-processing in the driver, and a static table may not work in this case anyways as drivers can be dynamically installed or replaced.  But your answer is also valid, just for a different situation.


Ø  I hope we can agree that it is not in the interest of the UA (the browser) to interfere with its own constraints abstraction. ;-)

Sure.  As  I mentioned in my first post, the example I put forward may not be realistic.


From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey [mailto:jib@mozilla.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:26 AM
To: Mandyam, Giridhar; Harald Alvestrand; public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Editor's draft (v20140321)

On 3/24/14 11:19 AM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
2) If you don't trust the driver, why trust the UAs (to return the right info)? I'm trying to think how I'd implement getNativeCapabilities() in the UA, and a static table of device names comes to mind... I mean, how is the UA supposed to know what tricks are in the driver at runtime? Another abstract method specifically for people who don't trust abstractions seems like a no-win.

Sorry, re-reading your post I see you said "avoid any UA-introduced processing delay". I hope you meant driver, or my answer makes no sense.

I hope we can agree that it is not in the interest of the UA (the browser) to interfere with its own constraints abstraction. ;-)

.: Jan-Ivar :.