Re: Missing definitions for parameters in MediaTrackCapabilties/MediaTrackConstraints?

On 4/23/15 5:44 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> When NewBrowser 53 has determined that it needs a parameter, it's going
> to ship with that parameter.
>
> If it can't get it into the place where parameters are registered, it
> will ship without registering it.
>
> If there's a registry that ensures that it can get the parameter
> registered within a week or two, even if the name should have been
> "ohmygodiwishididnothavetodothisbutireallyhaveto", it might register the
> parameter.

It's not enough to register, you have to look and observe it too for it 
to work. What if there's a run on the registry? What weight does it carry?

If the sole purpose of a registry is to avoid name-clashes then that 
seems like a low bar, and equally solvable with goog and moz.

>> If it became impossible to define new constraints without writing a spec
>> documenting them, then that seems like a good thing to me.
> There's absolutely nothing that this WG can do to prevent people from
> writing new constraints in code and shipping the result.

There's nothing stopping browsers from implementing entirely new APIs 
either. There's no registry for that, yet somehow standards prevail.

.: Jan-Ivar :.

Received on Friday, 24 April 2015 05:21:24 UTC