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

Re: Syntax of new constraint proposal

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 03:21:23 +0200
Message-ID: <53795C93.1080605@alvestrand.no>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
CC: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 05/19/2014 02:13 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:31 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 },
>> ];
>
> Or to express the same semantics as the first example, maybe:
> videoCfg = [
>     { constrain: ”width”, min: 640, ideal-min: 1920, ideal-max: 2560 },
> ];
>
> TBH I really quite like this. It turns the constraining around from
> listing the attributes, then listing the requirements, then the
> optional (but preferred ones) to grouping all information together by
> constraint feature.

Silvia, I have absolutely no idea what the semantics of the thing you
have just typed is, or how it would generalize to various combinations
that have been put forward as use cases.
Since this thread started off with "required", I have no idea how you
would express the difference between required stuff and non-required
stuff in that syntax.

But generally:

I do NOT think this is a good time for coming up with more proposals.

If we need to change things again, we need to have a really good reason
for it.
"Prettier" is not a really good reason.


>
> Silvia.
>


-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 01:21:54 UTC

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