Re: Missing definitions for parameters in MediaTrackCapabilties/MediaTrackConstraints?

On 4/20/15 2:42 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 04/20/2015 07:53 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 20 April 2015 at 05:40, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>>> There's more text on what they mean in section 14.1, "Track
>>> Constrainable Property Registration".
>> Can we remove the registry?  Is there any reason that we can't simply
>> maintain the document with the definitions of the things we are using?

+1 on removing.

> Only if we want to subscribe to the "living standard" hypothesis, and to
> the hypothesis that the W3C WG is the only body that will ever want to
> register a constraint.
>
> Not saying that we need to make one or the other decision, but trying to
> make sure we all agree to the consequences of the decision.

How does having a registry prevent all that? It seems incumbent on any 
new spec (from w3c or elsewhere) extending the mediaStream API, to 
document new constraints and to do so in WebIDL (with partial dictionary 
etc).

If it became impossible to define new constraints without writing a spec 
documenting them, then that seems like a good thing to me.

.: Jan-Ivar :.

Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2015 19:23:34 UTC