- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:50:55 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Ralph Giles <giles@thaumas.net>
- cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011, Ralph Giles wrote: > > Now that you mention it, the IETF rtcweb use cases and requirements > mention voice communication, but not music. A use case would be a link > between two locations participating in an event with a ambient music. Or > a teacher giving music lessons through a website. In the initial versions of this API, I would recommend that this use case be addressed by the user agents themselves: when the user OKs the use of the camera, there could be a preferences panel that enables the user to specify whether they want the stream optimised for music fidelity or low bandwidth, or whatnot. No need for every video-conferencing site to implement a separate UI for musicians. Indeed if we require sites to do it it's easy to predict that most will not. > I'm now going to argue the other direction, which is that we don't need > to expose the camera choice in the web api. Most devices will have only > a handful of input options, and privacy requirements mean we have to ask > the user for approval before granting access, and the platform may have > additional sensors and preferences which affect choices. For the current > spec, I think it's better to leave it up to the user agents to provide > ui for this. I don't mind dropping it, but it's worth bearing in mind that this may be the one feature of WebRTC that's received the most requests so far. :-) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 14 July 2011 21:51:21 UTC