- From: guest271314 via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:41:26 +0000
- To: public-webrtc-logs@w3.org
@henbos > but again this is not the intent of getDisplayMedia See the current language in the specification, emphasis added > Abstract > > This document defines how a user's display, **or parts thereof**, can be used as the source of a media stream using getDisplayMedia, an extension to the Media Capture API [GETUSERMEDIA]. We could ignore that language and write a specification from scratch which included the same language to achieve double-redundancy. It that is what you believe to be necessary, where to post the specification? WICG discourse? Am not a "member" of W3C, and not really interested in becoming beholden to an organization, particularly one which cannot write the words "patent and copyright" when that is what they are asking about. The specification should be very simple. In fact, since Mozilla has already written the and and implemented the code, the only question would be is will Chrome implement the specification? Using `getUserMedia()` is a logical choice for the solution. Yes, specifications should give guidance on UI functionality, to avoid multiple different actual implementations which could vary widely. One example of variance is WebM files output by `MediaRecorder`. Where without specifying track order, the tracks can be in an arbitrary order, adding complexity to the case of merging the WebM files output by Chrome and Firefox both withing the same browser and between the two browsers. That does not even get to `h264` code in WebM the Chrome supports, though WebM was proffered as only having certain codecs. In any event, how do you suggest to proceed? -- GitHub Notification of comment by guest271314 Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-screen-share/issues/105#issuecomment-522012790 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 16 August 2019 13:41:27 UTC