W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Missing Features: Stream Control

From: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:10:57 +0200
Message-ID: <5265A671.9060801@gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, public-webrtc@w3.org
The MediaStream API should be based on a common Streams API (see the 
links I provided if this is what you mean by a "pointer to ... naming") 
adding specific methods on top of it (tracks & co), like any API using 
Streams (xhr, ws, file, crypto, etc), WebRTC is not only about audio and 
video, this is not serious to say that WebRTC has specific streams, 
there is not even a pipe method in your definition.

Le 21/10/2013 14:22, Harald Alvestrand a écrit :
> On 10/18/2013 07:45 PM, Aymeric Vitte wrote:
>> Le 18/10/2013 19:31, Stefan Håkansson LK a écrit :
>>> I think we're talking about completely different streams, and what Adam
>>> is proposing is applicable for MediaStreamTracks in the context of a
>>> WebRTC PeerConnection.
>> I don't see why, a stream is a stream, this would be strange that a 
>> Streams API is defined and WebRTC is using something different, 
>> moreover that this does not change the spec, the spec just has to 
>> support Streams
> A MediaStream MediaStreamTrack as specified in this specification 
> isn't what people are talking about in any of the zillion different 
> proposals that use the name Stream.
> Please don't use the name Stream without a pointer to the specific 
> proposal you're naming. The name has been used too many times for sanity.

Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 22:11:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:51 UTC