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

Re: Thoughts on converging MediaStream and Stream objects

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 23:23:59 +0100
Message-ID: <4EE28A7F.3000003@alvestrand.no>
To: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 12/09/2011 10:52 PM, Travis Leithead wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
>>
>> I think you are misled by an accident of naming.
>>
>> If anything should be converged with the Stream API (something I'm not
>> at all sure of), it should be the MediaStreamTrack.
>>
>> The sharpest difference is that a Stream is a byte pipe; a
>> MediaStreamTrack is a control surface for an underlying implementation
>> where the concept of "byte" doesn't even have to be meaningful.
> I certainly understand the difference between the MediaStreamTrack
> and the Stream-as-a-byte-pipe, however I didn't make the connection to
> why/how you think the two should be converged? Can you explain in more
> detail?
>
A MediaStream is a container for zero or more MediaStreamTracks, with 
the ability to connect those as an unit to a <video> tag, a 
PeerConnection or some other consuming entity, and that's just about 
everything it is. It doesn't resemble a Stream at all.

My main point is that Stream and MediaStream should *not* be converged.
Received on Friday, 9 December 2011 22:24:26 GMT

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