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

Re: Syntax of new constraint proposal

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 11:45:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-1N0eGqFFJxnXpmH-2s_6+NOf469m365RPJpAETbHYYtg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
I don't mind the require stuff. It's the advanced stuff that I want to
avoid ever having to touch.


On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com
> wrote:

>
> 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 18:46:16 UTC

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