Re: Call for Consensus to publish a First Public Working Draft of "MediaStream Recording API", deadline 31 Jan 2013 [resend adding DAP]

Thanks for your response.  My primary concern for my first comment is that
this specification should be able to support DVR/PVR functions. Although it
doesn't seem specifically designed for this purpose, it appears to provide
significant support in that direction. I would also note that the Web & TV
IG has initiated a Recording and Downloading Media task force [1] which I
expect will produce a requirements document. IMO, it would be detrimental
if DAP produces a Media recording API that does not satisfy the
requirements coming from this activity.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2012Nov/0033.html

Regards,
Glenn

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>wrote:

>  Glenn,****
>
> I’m not sure that I understand your first point.  The API is defined to
> work with any object of type MediaStream, whether local or remote.  If
> there is some other object that needs to be recorded, I would think that
> the question would be how to convert it into a MediaStream.  The
> getUserMedia spec would be the right place to do that, or possibly a
> separate spec, but the process should be transparent to the MediaRecorder
> class.  (There’s a separate discussion going on about whether we want to
> taint certain MediaStreams to prevent recording for security reasons, but
> that’s orthogonal to this issue, I think.)****
>
> ** **
>
> On the issue of where takePhoto() goes, it was originally a method on
> VideoTrack.  We moved it to the recorder class because it seemed to have a
> lot in common with recording.  I don’t particularly care where it goes,
> though I wonder if a new interface is justified, given how limited the
> functionality is.  I’ll go with whatever the majority decides.****
>
> ** **
>
> **-          **Jim****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:21 AM
> *To:* Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
> *Cc:* public-device-apis@w3.org; public-webrtc@w3.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: Call for Consensus to publish a First Public Working Draft
> of "MediaStream Recording API", deadline 31 Jan 2013 [resend adding DAP]**
> **
>
>  ** **
>
> >From my brief read of this draft, I have the following comments:****
>
>    - Document should describe how it the mechanisms defined can be used
>    to record media streams deriving from non-local devices, specifically, how
>    to record media streams obtained from external servers, e.g., streams
>    fetched and presented by HTMLMediaElement.****
>    - The members takePhoto() and onphoto should be moved to a separate
>    interface to make the MediaRecorder interface more generic, and not tied to
>    specific types of media sources.****
>
>  Regards,****
>
> Glenn****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:31 AM, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:****
>
> DAP members:
>
> The Media Capture Task Force [a] is a joint Task Force of the DAP and
> WebRTC working groups. This is a CfC to publish a FPWD of the  "MediaStream
> Recording API".
>
> Below I include the mail sent to the WebRTC mailing list, consider this as
> a CfC for the Device APIs working group as well, and please respond on the
> DAP public mail list  as well as the public WebRTC mailing list with either
> +1 or concerns. (I've cross-posted this mail deliberately as CfC responses
> should be seen by all and I expect relatively low traffic).
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
> Chair, W3C DAP Working Group
>
> [a] http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/#mediacapture
>
> CfC sent to WebRTC list:
> [[
>
> During the Media Capture Task Force call on 6 December 2012 [1] we agreed
> to start a CfC for a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the  "MediaStream
> Recording API" draft once Jim completed some additional
> edits, which he has [2].
>
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) for the WebRTC WG members to publish
>  of FPWD of this document.
>
> A FPWD is a draft and can thus continue to be edited and evolve, but
>  gives visibility of the work to a broader community, and is thus useful.
>  It also starts the call-for-exclusion process under the W3C Patent Policy.
>
> As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and
> silence will be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for
> comments is Thursday January 31st and all comments should
> be sent to public-webrtc at w3.org. We can then publish the week after,
>  assuming that works for the W3C team and editors.
>
> Stefan, for the chairs
>
> [1] Minutes:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2013Jan/0057.html
>
>
> [2] Draft:
>
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Dec/att-0159/RecordingProposal.html
>
> ]]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>