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 HÃ¥kansson 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:32 UTC