W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > December 2012

Re: New version of editors draft released (20121212)

From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:27:32 -0500
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <05F58A8E-3C02-4DF9-AFD8-0878A685C996@voxeo.com>
To: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>

On Dec 14, 2012, at 4:41 AM, Adam Bergkvist wrote:

> On 2012-12-13 14:59, Dan Burnett wrote:
>> I agree that we decided to add "id".  I don't agree with removing
>> "label".  My understanding from the f2f meeting was that we would end
>> up with both MediaStream and MediaStreamTrack objects having both
>> "id" (machine-generated) and "label" (human-generated) attributes.
> 
> I remember us talking about the confusing regarding label meaning something on MediaStream and something else on MediaStramTrack, but I don't really recall the exact resolution.
> 
> This edit was really a rename of what you refer to as the "machine-generated" identifier from "label" to "id" to align with MediaStreamTrack. We've never had a "human-generated" identifier on MediaStream so it hasn't been removed. :)
> 
> I'm not really convinced we need a human settable identifier on MediaStream unless it's transported over a p2p connection (and we have a use-case for that). If you want to assign a custom label to a MediaStream on the local side you can simply add as many new properties to it as you like (myStream.label = "Web Cam & headset mic"; ).

As long as MediaStream and MediaStreamTrack have the same (one or two) attributes, I'm happy.  I don't see any more need for a human-generated label on a MediaStreamTrack than on a MediaStream, by your argument above, and yet I believe we are keeping label on MediaStreamTrack.  They should be consistent.

> 
> /Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 13:27:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 December 2012 13:28:00 GMT