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

Re: Syntax of new constraint proposal

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 17:07:19 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2nOQza8eS1=-4OW8SPfb0s_7hxNi_RgAV_-x3rBYfoeMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Harald Alvestrand
<harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> 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.

I interpreted the semantics of this proposal from Cullen:
videoCfg = {
 require: ["width"],
 width: { min: 640 },
 advanced: [
    { width: { min: 1920 } },
    { width: { max: 2560 } } ]
};

to mean:
I want width to be a min of 640, but preferably between 1920 and 2560.

Therefore my adjustment of his changed proposal to include the range
of preference rather than a single "ideal" value.


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

Take that up with Cullen, who started the thread.
I personally wasn't aware that we had already changed the Syntax again, sorry.

Regards,
Silvia.

> 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 07:08:06 UTC

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