W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > June 2015

Re: Question about constraint registration

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:18:56 +0200
Message-ID: <55785560.4080000@w3.org>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 10/06/2015 16:54, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
> > I'm wondering how the people that are keen on Living document view
> this as working. Qualicom had about 20 constraints they proposed that
> the WG decided not to put in the GUM spec (at least not initial
> version of it). If we went down the living document route and they
> sent a PR request to add all of theses today, would we just add them
> ? Would the WG have a clear policy of accepting constraints and
> adding them to the specification even if no major browser intended to
> implement them?

We could:
* add them to the current version of getUserMedia if we expect them to 
get implemented roughly in the same timeframe as the existing 
constraints there

* put them in a 1.1 version of getUserMedia if we feel they're more in a 
longer timeframe

* put them into a separate document altogether (using WebIDL partials) 
if we feel they constitute something we can progress at a different pace 
than the rest of the getUserMedia API evolution

The way I think about constraints is also how I think about CSS 
properties and JavaScript APIs hanging on the navigator object: there is 
no fast and hard rule on how you package them, but they need discussion, 
review, patent-policy protection and interop testing.

Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2015 15:18:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:33 UTC