Yes.
At the interim in DC, it was my understanding that we agreed on bare ==
exact in advanced and bare == ideal in top-level. I think bare == exact is
the only thing that makes sense in advanced. And while we've previously
had tons of discussion around bare == ideal in top-level, I believe that's
still what we've agreed on.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
> On 10/02/15 12:52, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> > Jan-Ivar raised the following issue in the tracker:
> >
> > https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/128
> >
> > The construct under discussion is this:
> >
> > var constraints=
> > {
> > width: {min: 640, ideal: 1280},
> > height: {min: 480, ideal: 720},
> > advanced: [{width: 1920, height: 1280},
> > {aspectRatio: 1.3333333333}]
> > };
> >
> >
> > The question is: are the bare values in "advanced" intended as "exact"
> > or "ideal"?
> >
> > If "ideal", the algorithm needs to specify how to deal with multiple
> > "ideal" values for the same list of constraints - which one applies?
> >
> > If "exact" (which was clearly intended by the example originally), the
> > algorithm needs to specify that bare values are exact in one context and
> > ideal in the other. Dom has a pull request doing this here, with some
> > discussion:
> >
> > https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/pull/132
> >
> > Before we fixate on exact text, it seems good to verify what the WG
> wants.
> > Are we happy to see bare values mean "ideal" in top level and "exact" in
> > "advanced"?
>
> (contributor hat) yes.
>
> >
> > Harald
> >
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2015 17:19:47 UTC