- From: Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 15:06:46 -0400
- To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, public-media-capture@w3.org
- Message-ID: <533476C6.3090402@gmail.com>
Jan-Ivar, I do like the way that you included the list of requirements in your slide deck, and have made a real attempt to meet them. The reason that the requirements look like they're skewed to the current spec is that they grew up along with it. We didn't start with a clear set of requirements, but with a general idea. As we discussed things, we got clearer on what we wanted, and so what I'm calling "requirements" are the main points we agreed on as we went along. I would also like to clarify my earlier point on the simplicity of syntax. It's very much a matter of personal taste. I was raised on LISP and find nested structures quite intuitive, while I dislike syntaxes that have semantically distinct concepts at the same level - so "width" and "require" are at the same level in the dictionary yet mean very different things. I don't expect others to share my tastes, but I don't think that there is a fact of the matter as to which of the proposals is simpler. - Jim On 3/27/2014 2:54 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote: > 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 :. > -- Jim Barnett Genesys
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2014 19:07:24 UTC