Re: Constraints 2014

On 3/25/14 8:02 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> I am now of this opinion as well. But if we're not going to be able to 
> get there, I prefer "Constraints 2014" as a slimmed-down version of 
> constraints that can be implemented more readily.

Great.

> However, I am opposed to the C2014 pattern of dumping both audio and 
> video qualifiers into a single bag of options. sourceId already points 
> out the danger in doing so; I think we should avoid future trouble and 
> scope qualifiers to a media type, e.g.
>
>  var constraints = {
> video: {
> require: ["width", "height"],
> width: { min: 640, max: 1280 },
> height: { min: 480, max: 768 },
> aspectRatio: 16/9,
> frameRate: 60,
>     }
>   };

Sure, that is certainly doable, if people prefer, or we could perhaps do 
videoSourceId and audioSourceId? Things don't seem to overlap much 
otherwise.

I'm not tied to one way or the other.

.: Jan-Ivar :.