- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 15:42:28 +0000
- To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 26/03/14 01:03, 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.
>
> 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,
> }
> };
I agree, this would be more natural, and also align better to
constraints use on a MediaStreamTrack (the kind - currently audio or
video - is already set).
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2014 15:42:54 UTC