Re: Constraints 2014 new slides

That's requirement 2 in slide 10.

Unknown mandatory constraints must fail.

It fails, same as current spec.

.: Jan-Ivar :.

On 3/27/14 4:53 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> Sorry - my concern was specifically about Jan-Ivar's proposal, and how 
> it differs from the current proposal.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:49 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org 
> <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> wrote:
>
>     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 :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
.: Jan-Ivar :.