- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 16:01:48 +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 16:42, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> 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).
PS another advantage is that adding the capability to ask for more than
one video or audio track with a gUM call is more straighforward.
(Currently we have quite artificially limited it to one track of each
type - but I can see more cameras being used, and the app asking for
them in a single gUM call. This is for the future.).
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2014 16:02:13 UTC