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

Re: recording proposal

From: Timothy B. Terriberry <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:29:22 -0700
Message-ID: <507E09F2.2040305@mozilla.com>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Jim Barnett wrote:
> otherwise.)  On the other hand, unless we specify MTI container formats,
> this approach doesn’t provide much interoperability.  If we want to
> avoid another round of the MTI wars,  maybe we could get away with
> saying that the UA must support a container format that can
> merge/synchronize a single video and single audio stream.  This would

MTI was viewed as important for the <video> tag so that websites could 
encode files in a single format and serve it to all clients, and for 
WebRTC so that two different clients could successfully communicate. The 
case is somewhat weaker for recording, since (in the use-cases as I 
understand them), the client is producing a stream for uploading to a 
server, which will consume it once. I think the most important 
requirement is that a browser produce a format that it can, itself, play 
back.
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 01:29:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:02 GMT