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

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

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:22:49 -0800
Message-ID: <4F32AF69.1050603@alvestrand.no>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 02/08/2012 06:10 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2012, at 07:13 , Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> On 02/07/2012 10:06 AM, Travis Leithead wrote:
>>> 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.
>> We've been over this before (thread "Defining the split..." starting on Dec 7).
>> It petered out pretty quickly, with comments only from you, me and Rich Tibbett (who started the thread, and then fell silent).
>>
>> I'd like to hear from more people before declaring that it's interesting to reopen the issue.
> One important consideration to take into account here is speed. During the TPAC face to face, I believe I heard several people mentioning that they wanted to move quickly with this specification (I recall hearing Q1 for something roughly stable  we're halfway across!). I don't know what the schedule is on the RTC side, but if the gUM spec has an important dependency on another, in order to be considered roughly stable the other has to be roughly stable too.
>
> I don't have a specific bone in this, I'm just pointing out that if we indeed wish to move as fast as people declared, it may have consequences on what goes where.
>
Most of the urgency seems to be coming from the WEBRTC side of the fence.
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 17:25:57 UTC

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