W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > March 2013

[Bug 21300] New: lack of clarity around appendStream

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:39:58 +0000
To: public-html-media@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-21300-5436@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21300

            Bug ID: 21300
           Summary: lack of clarity around appendStream
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: PC
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Media Source Extensions
          Assignee: adrianba@microsoft.com
          Reporter: oipfjon@gmail.com
        QA Contact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-media@w3.org

This issue results from a joint meeting between the Open IPTV Forum, HbbTV and
the UK DTG. These organizations originally sent a liaison statement to the W3C
Web & TV IG:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-web-and-tv/2013Jan/0000.html (W3C
member only link)

We appreciate that appendStream is new however we're trying to understand how
it would work in some real-world use-cases and details seem to be lacking.
How would you expect the Stream objects to be obtained for use with
appendStream? For example, would you expect the extensions to XMLHttpRequest
defined in the Streams API specification to be used to create a Stream object
referencing an XMLHttpRequest? If not, how would you expect this be done
typically? If there is an assumed dependency on other new W3C specifications
then we suggest this be made more explicit. 

In this context, how should xmlHttpRequest.open(GET, ...) behave if
insufficient client resources exist to store the result?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 08:41:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:58 UTC