Re: Constraints 2014

Hi Cullen,

On sam., 2014-03-22 at 12:29 -0600, Cullen Jennings 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

GUM does not meet all its use cases without this, agreed; and I too
really see the need for constraints in my development work. But my
proposal is not about making GUM not meeting all its use cases, but
scheduling our work to match the state of implementations.

Right now, it seems to me there is still lots of uncertainties around
constraints; even if we were to stick to the current design, there seems
to be still some significant amount of work before we can declare them
bug free (as J-I's recent reports have shown).

It feels like the rest of GUM is a lot more stable, and a lot more
widely implemented; I think we would do the world a better service by
freezing and testing that stable and implemented part, than by leaving
the whole spec as tentatively changeable (which is what we communicate
by sticking to simple Working Drafts).

Splitting out a part of the spec is not saying that part won't be done;
it's simply the recognition that that part requires a different
schedule. And if we manage in fact to make faster progress on
constraints, we can always remerge them in the main spec (and I'm
willing to do the grunt work of splitting / merging if that's an
obstacle).

Dom

Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 08:16:07 UTC