Re: Constraints 2014 new slides

On 3/27/14 2:30 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:
> This all will be aired on the call, but let me agree with ekr for the 
> record.  I don't see how this new proposal is an improvement on the 
> existing one.  It is less powerful (can't couple constraints, only 
> limited back-off),

I included a slide with your requirements in the new slide deck, so 
hopefully we can discuss them if there is time.

I think that is generous given how the language of those requirements 
skews to the current spec (steeped in its language at least), and it is 
obviously written in hindsight. It doesn't look like the kind of 
requirements I would expect to see ahead of a project.

For instance, what you call "back-off", I might turn around and call 
"preference", like "I prefer higher frameRates over lower ones". True, 
the syntax is more limited in that you can't say "if I can't have a boat 
then I want cake",  but people may view that as a win. I think some 
would say we went overkill here a long time ago.

> and to my eye the syntax more confusing.  We have an existing proposal 
> that has been through a lot of discussion and we should not change it 
> without very good reason, particularly if we want to get done this decade.

I think the faster path is to avoid inventing odd non-WebIDL APIs. The 
sooner we stop innovating in this space, and use boring WebIDL, the 
sooner we can get back to our core mission.

.: Jan-Ivar :.