- From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 11:00:15 -0500
- To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
- CC: Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com>, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
If Adam went through and found no part ofhttp://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html spec that needed constraints, why would we use the Constrainable interface? Settings and Capabilities alone are mere dictionary getters and setters. .: Jan-Ivar :. On 2/3/14 7:31 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: > I think we might be talking past each other with difference on the Settings and Capabilities in the Contrastable interface vs the Constraints part. Does not really matter as it will be clear once we can get it all edited up and that point east to sort out. > > > On Feb 3, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote: > >> That's not my understanding. IIRC Adam went through and found no part of http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html spec that needed constraints. >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm a little confused why we're discussing Constrainable in public-webrtc, since I believe we've extricated Constrainable from http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html >> Uh - webrtc is going to use the Constrainable interface - we just moved the definition of it to GUM and until we get the basic interface sorted out there has not been a lot of energy into sorting out all the parts of the spec that would use the interface.
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 16:00:41 UTC