- From: youennf via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 10:12:57 +0000
- To: public-webrtc-logs@w3.org
> exposing on something more media-related or RTC-related gives better encapsulation. Partial interfaces seem sufficient to me. Tieing produceCropTarget to MediaDevices creates some edge cases we should not have to deal with. For instance, what happens in the case of calling produceCropTarget on a detached iframe for a HTMLElement which is not part of the detached iframe? Calling twice produceCropTarget on the same element is expected to produce the same CropTarget, which might be surprising given it is a method. On the other hand, this is by definition what is expected of attributes so it seems best to model this API as an attribute (basically as a slot in HTMLElement). As of promise attribute vs. sync attribute, from what I read, using promises here is to accommodate a particular browser implementation. In general, we reserve promises to asynchronous operations, like querying hardware, querying centralised resources, querying user input. This is clearly not the case here, CropTarget is nothing more than a unique ID. It does not seem hard to make it work synchronously without any race condition. > Editorial: To make this thread more accessible, could you please edit the original post and add ```webidl before the code snippets before and ``` after them? Done -- GitHub Notification of comment by youennf Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/11#issuecomment-1022053691 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2022 10:12:58 UTC