- From: Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 12:07:54 -0400
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
I agree with Martin. If the author says that 'foo' is required, then
doesn't specify it. Furthermore, the fact that the constraint is
missing is how we detect unsupported mandatory constraints. If the UA
doesn't support the 'height' attribute, and the author specifies it in a
mandatory constraint with 'require', the situation will look to the UA
just like the one described in the bug.
- Jim
On 5/18/2014 11:23 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 18 May 2014 05:59, <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org> wrote:
>> The way require works now means that
>>
>> var constraints =
>> {
>> require: ["width", "height"],
>> width: {min: 640},
>> };
>>
>> will always fail because there is no hight attribute. This seems wacky. If
>> there is not constraint, it should not fail.
> I disagree. The application asked for something to fail and then set
> up an impossible configuration, that's not so bad.
>
--
Jim Barnett
Genesys
Received on Sunday, 18 May 2014 16:08:59 UTC