Re: Constraints 2014 new slides

How does this design deal with the previously mentioned problem where it
wasn't clear how an unknown mandatory constraint should be handled?


On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:21 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

> Seeing as "prevent browser fingerprinting" is not listed as a requirement,
> I'd like to propose a Capability Enumeration API as a possible solution.
>
> As far as I'm aware, this solves all the requirements met by previous
> designs and more. The only downside is an increased ability to carry out
> browser fingerprinting but as Erik, Martin and I have brought up in the
> past: this is already a lost battle.
>
> As an aside, I find Jan-Ivar's new proposal easier to read than the
> current gUM API. I don't care much about WebIDL but readability is a big
> concern for me.
>
>
> Gili
>
> On 26/03/2014 8:23 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
>
>> I tried Justin's changes and I like it!
>>
>> So I think I'll present this slide-deck instead.
>>
>> .: Jan-Ivar :.
>>
>> On 3/26/14 12:35 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
>>
>>> Here are my slides for tomorrow's call.
>>>
>>> Please bear in mind that they don't reflect Justin's reasonable
>>> suggestion to divide things explicitly into video and audio.
>>>
>>> I am totally open to such renaming, but it doesn't functionally impact
>>> my presentation, so I think I'll present it as I have it, and hopefully we
>>> can discuss names at the end (I may come with a backup slide-deck).
>>>
>>> I hope that works for everybody.
>>>
>>> .: Jan-Ivar :
>>>
>>
>>
>
>