W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > February 2012

RE: [media cap] 1st draft agenda for telco

From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 18:06:05 +0000
To: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9768D477C67135458BF978A45BCF9B38382104D0@TK5EX14MBXW603.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Rich brought up a topic a while ago that may merit some discussion, as I'm also interested in the same:

Rationale for keeping the definition of the MediaStream interface in the WebRTC spec.

I know that both PeerConnection and getUserMedia are entry points to get/create media streams. So I'd like to start a conversation about which spec should define the MediaStream interface and why.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stefan Hakansson LK [mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com]
>Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:23 AM
>To: public-media-capture@w3.org
>Subject: [media cap] 1st draft agenda for telco
>
>Hi all,
>
>below is a very first draft of agenda for the telco (coming up this
>Thursday Feb 9th at 5.00PM CET):
>
>* Welcome
>* Scribe
>* Capabilities and privacy
>** Recap of capabilities vs. privacy/fingerprinting discussion at webrtc
>mtg
>** Discussion
>* Scenarios doc (Travis)
>** Move to FPWD?
>* GetUserMedia doc (Dan/Anant)
>** Status
>** Discuss input made by Anant
>
>Please provide input to the agenda proposal!
>
>Stefan for the chairs
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:45:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:24:35 UTC