W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc-logs@w3.org > February 2022

Re: [mediacapture-region] Why expose produceCropTarget at MediaDevices level? (#11)

From: youennf via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 14:17:54 +0000
To: public-webrtc-logs@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-1027985081-1643811472-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> * Better encapsulation, as CropTarget production is media/RTC-related, as is MediaDevices; Element is very general.

requestFullScreen API attached to Element directly is well encapsulated through partial interface.

> * In contexts where MediaDevices is missing (eg HTTP), this API would not be exposed, which is preferable.

SecureContext can be applied to methods as well as interfaces so this seems orthogonal.
With mixed context allowed, one could think of having a non secure context generate CropTarget for its SecureContext parent.

> * If we agree ([other thread](https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/17)) that we need a Promise, then a method is more natural than an attribute.

Using promises is largely orthogonal in that case.
The question is more whether for a given element, you get the same CropTarget object (current spec behavior) or not.
With attributes, you get the same CropTarget calling get after get, this is an expected behaviour.
With methods, you would get different promises but the same fulfilled JS object.
Existing APIs that have this model tend to my knowledge to prefer attributes in that case (see FetchEvent, WHATWG Streams, WebAnimation as example).

GitHub Notification of comment by youennf
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/11#issuecomment-1027985081 using your GitHub account

Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2022 14:17:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 6 May 2023 21:19:56 UTC