Re: Syntax of new constraint proposal

On 18 May 2014 07:53, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
> videoCfg = {
>  require: ["width"],
>  width: { min: 640 },
>  advanced: [
>     { width: { min: 1920 } },
>     { width: { max: 2560 } } ]
> };

I've been thinking of "advanced" as "fallback".  The problem is that I
think we decided to put the advanced stuff first, which is immensely
unintuitive to me.