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

Re: Syntax of new constraint proposal

From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 18:31:12 +0000
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
CC: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C28DC291-8E9A-441C-A22F-C30B3BF3A476@cisco.com>

On May 18, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> I think 'ideal' will make this less inscrutable, e.g.
> 
> videoCfg = {
>  require: ["width"],
>  width: { min: 640, ideal: 1920 },
> };
> 
> which to me reads even more cleanly that the mandatory/optional syntax.
> 

yah, that is even clearer - but the require things is still confusing. What about 

videoCfg = [
    { constrain: ”width”, min: 640, ideal: 1920 },
];
Received on Sunday, 18 May 2014 18:31:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:40 UTC