- From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:28:18 -0400
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Charlie Kehoe <ckehoe@google.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
- CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 5/11/15 3:41 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Den 11. mai 2015 17:08, skrev Jan-Ivar Bruaroey:
>> { latency: { max: 0.0025 } } // I wanna do something else if not
>> low-latency
>> { latency: { min: 0.025 } } // I wanna do something else if not
>> high-latency
>>
>> Lastly, constraints are about abstracting access to shared properties.
>> Since this use-case is ultimately about power consumption, I think it
>> fits (e.g. I might want to know if another tab prevents me from actually
>> getting high-latency, so I can alter my apps's behavior).
> This use case (speech recognition on mobile platforms) is about power
> consumption / latency tradeoff.
>
> The other use case I know of (interactive live music) is about seeing if
> delay can be controlled down to a tolerable level; power is almost
> irrelevant in this context.
Makes sense. Being a constraint (vs. say a UA property) shouldn't
preclude a UA from in theory servicing such a request while
simultaneously servicing higher-latency requests at the same time, but
it wouldn't require a UA to do so, which I think works.
.: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Monday, 11 May 2015 20:28:50 UTC