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

Re: Synchronous getUserMedia proposal

From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 14:30:46 +0100
Message-ID: <5097BF86.9000303@ericsson.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 11/05/2012 02:26 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 5 November 2012 13:13, Stefan Hakansson LK
> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> On 11/05/2012 01:17 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>> It might be possible to combine those two things into an onready
>>> event.
>> Agree, but I think onunmute could be used for this (but we could of course
>> rename it to onready or something like that). I.e. status of the tracks
>> delivered immediately by gUM is MUTED, and this changes to LIVE (and fires
>> the unmute event) once the used gives consent, but changes to ENDED (and
>> fires ended) instead of MUTED for the tracks the user does not give consent
>> to.
>
> Collapsing the two states (start, end) and (mute, unmute) is possible,
> but I had thought that these would remain separate variables.  I can
> imagine granting consent to a muted source.  That is often how I
> prefer to start conference calls.  Collapsing the states would result
> in some loss of information.

I agree, but had the feeling it would be OK (i.e. that the app would not 
really care if it is the consent or the muted mike that holds "unmute" 
back) anyway. This may be wrong. Note that as long as the user mutes by 
using some control in the application, it is the "enabled/disabled" 
property that toggles, not "mute/unmute".
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 13:31:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 November 2012 13:31:16 GMT