Re: Constraints 2014

On Mar 25, 2014, at 2:15 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 


I’m sure there is a range of opinions on what the minimal viable product is for this spec but for me, it has to be very clear on what the extensibility mechanisms is and how we add stuff in the future. I don’t care so much about if there is way to say you want a specific size of video as long as it is very clear how that gets added later. If we don’t have it clear now how things are added, I think it will be difficult to add later. I feel similarly about things like privacy - it’s hard to add them later. Particularly given that we do’t use versioning. 

I really don’t think there is much that is "uncertain" about the current proposal other than a few people don’t like it and we are still mucking around with how to describe the syntax in WebIDL but the actual JS that one would write and what the browser would do with it seems to be fine.

Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 16:14:43 UTC