W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > December 2011

RE: Defining the split on WebRTC deliverables

From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 18:31:00 +0000
To: Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9768D477C67135458BF978A45BCF9B38381C46B8@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
>Would there be any issues with moving 'Section 3: Stream API' from the
>WebRTC API spec to the Media Capture API spec? *

I also support this request.

>We should also try early on to converge [2], [4] and [5]. Anyone want to
>get the ball rolling on that in a separate thread?

I have some thoughts about Stream vs. MediaStream and I'll send them as a separate thread. I don't know much about DataStream yet, so I'll need to read-up on that.

>* I'm proposing that we rename of the 'getusermedia' document to 'Media
>Capture API' unless there are any objections.

Looks like the old DAP spec address [6] already redirects to getusermedia. Sounds like a good idea for search term consistency :)

>[2] http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html#stream-api
>[4] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webapps/raw-file/tip/StreamAPI/Overview.htm
>[5]
>https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=16csYCaHxIYP83DzCZJL7relQm2QNxT-
>qkay4-jLxoKA&pli=1
[6] http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/Overview-API
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 18:31:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:14:58 GMT