- From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:57:38 +0200
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 06/19/2012 08:30 AM, Randell Jesup wrote: > On 6/18/2012 3:22 PM, Justin Uberti wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) >> <fluffy@cisco.com<mailto:fluffy@cisco.com>> wrote: >> >> >> This seems like good proposal, one comment on a small detail. >> >> On Jun 15, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Justin Uberti wrote: >> >> > SessionDescriptionOptions.IncludeAudio = true/false // forces >> m=audio line to be included >> > SessionDescriptionOptions.IncludeVideo = true/false // forces >> m=video line to be included >> > SessionDescriptionOptions.UseVoiceActivityDetection = true/false >> // includes CN codecs if true >> >> I think these three should be constraints, not settings because a >> given browser may not support any of them. >> >> >> Practically speaking, what does that mean for applications? > > I can conceive of a browser implementing audio but not video. And a > gateway or other stand-alone WebRTC box/functionality might include JS > and these JS apis for ease of programming (and might be audio-only). > (I'd try to avoid it in production, probably, but even that might not be > needed with modern JS JIT speed so long as it didn't have to tear down > and restart all the time.) > > CN codecs: I dislike them anyways. :-) An implementation definitely > could avoid including those. Many codecs have built in CN modes. I guess for those it is more a question of being able to switch off the VAD. > >
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 12:58:13 UTC