- From: Elad Alon via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 28 May 2022 11:21:15 +0000
- To: public-webrtc-logs@w3.org
All Elements are eligible to cropping based on the current definition in the spec - which I am arguing we should amend, because not all Element subtypes make **sensible** crop-targets. We started this discussion when I said that we should allow user agents to reject crop-minting for three categories of reasons. The three categories were laid out [here](https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/48#issuecomment-1136330532), before you (@jan-ivar) insisted on branching the discussion. The present issue was created to discuss the first category - "Elements like HTMLAudioElement". I have been arguing for a while that we should allow user agents to reject these Elements. Is this clear now? > What elements do you mean when you say "elements like HTMLAudioElement?" Do you include HTMLVideoElement? > ... > To help clarify, do you think it is sensible to support HTMLVideoElement? If this part were unclear before, you could have asked. @dontcallmedom, could you please help ensure the W3C does not devolve into 4Chan? It is quite inappropriate to claim one is [wasting the WG's time](https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/51#issuecomment-1139942790) when one has not answered a question that was never posed. To answer @jan-ivar's new question - I think HTMLVideoElement makes a relatively sensible crop-target and I don't presently seek to pack it in the same bin with HTMLAudioElement. I can start compiling a list of such subtypes after we decide what to do with HTMLAudioElement. The guiding principle is that Elements whose shape is not sufficiently constant between implementations do not make for sensible targets, because they don't produce a definition of a target area that is constant between implementations, or even different versions of a given implementation. > Is having that discussion here your intent? My intent is to find partners who are honestly engaged in having the discussion and following it wherever it naturally goes. If this means scoping back down to div/iframe, as Youenn and I have both now suggested, then that works for me too. Are you interested in this compromise, @jan-ivar? Yes or no? > Yes it's sensible and has consensus I don't see how it helps anyone to claim "consensus" when one of three parties engaged in this discussion tells you they want to change things. It would make more sense to call this the "status quo". > rather people who want to make a change have to explain why it's not sensible. Which I have. -- GitHub Notification of comment by eladalon1983 Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/51#issuecomment-1140241634 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Saturday, 28 May 2022 11:21:16 UTC