W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Doohickeys - slightly another take

From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 20:02:31 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" <snandaku@cisco.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <37F68421-810B-4E40-ADC9-9A829F63433C@cisco.com>

On Apr 21, 2014, at 12:47 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1.  I think that this leaps to the conclusion that constraints are
> right without strong enough justification.  Constrainable is a
> powerfully generic tool, and I'd want to see stronger evidence that a
> less generic mechanism is not going to work before I'd be happy with
> this.
> 
>  flow.pause()/flow.resume()/flow.stop() might work for the stopping case
>  flow.priority = "high" seems workable for the other case

The argument for resolution and aspect ratio seem the same here as it is for GUM. Thus it seems like the conclusion will be the same. 

However, I think the real issue is you want consistent behavior if you set the resolution in either place and presumable the same code could be used to make it happen. 
Received on Sunday, 27 April 2014 20:02:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:38 UTC