Re: Revised getUserMedia editor's draft available

Hi Dan and all

My question is : using MediaTrackConstrainst instead of option is for what
purpose?
To my opinion, it seems make the constraint complex and more difficult for
understanding compared with previous edition.

What's more,
why

dictionary MediaTrackConstraints {    dictionary
MediaTrackConstraintSet? mandatory
<http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.html#widl-MediaTrackConstraints-mandatory>;
   sequence<MediaTrackConstraint>?     optional
<http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.html#widl-MediaTrackConstraints-optional>;
};

in MediaTrackConstraints object, the 2 parameters have different type, can
you telll me the real difference for these 2 parameters?I can not get the
meaning from the existing text?

thanks
Yang
Huawei

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com> wrote:

> FYI
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *Resent-From: *public-media-capture@w3.org
> *From: *Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
> *Subject: **Revised getUserMedia editor's draft available*
> *Date: *June 1, 2012 10:35:56 PM EDT
> *To: *public-media-capture@w3.org
> *Archived-At: *<
> http://www.w3.org/mid/3A794161-A5E0-4BE9-B47A-5077B5F0672A@voxeo.com>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I just committed a new version of the editor's draft for the getUserMedia
> specification, available at the usual place:
> http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.html
> The static dated version is at
> http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia-20120601.html
>
> This revision now contains the constraints structure and algorithm.
>
> Notes:
>
> 1. The original proposal that I wrote very clearly stated that only the
> semantics of the constraint processing algorithm needed to be followed,
> rather than the precise steps of the algorithm. However, the original text
> for getusermedia processing requires literal implementation of the steps of
> the algorithm.  Since some people on this list do not want to implement the
> constraint algorithm precisely as given for efficiency reasons, can anyone
> suggest how we can adjust the wording at the top of the algorithm to
> accommodate this?
>
> 2. I still need to fix draft-burnett-rtcweb-constraints-registry to use
> the new syntax for constraints.
>
> 3. I have not yet added the capabilities section.  I will do that in a
> subsequent draft.
>
> Please send your feedback and comments to the list.
>
> -- dan
>
>
>
>


-- 
Yang
Huawei