Re: Constraints 2014 new slides

Hi Justin,

Just to make sure understood you correctly, Jan-Ivar's proposal throws 
an error on unknown mandatory constraints and you're saying that our 
proposal should do the same. Is that correct?

Gili

On 27/03/2014 4:46 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 :
>
>
>
>
>