- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 12:17:30 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17082 Philip J <philipj@opera.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |philipj@opera.com --- Comment #1 from Philip J <philipj@opera.com> 2012-05-21 12:17:29 UTC --- 1. (In reply to comment #0) > This question has come up several times when I talk to people about the Media > Source Extensions so I think it deserves some discussion. > > Should the Media Source methods & attributes be in a separate object instead of > added to the HTMLMediaElement? I think so, yes. > Here are a few other follow up questions to spark discussion: > 1. What do we gain by moving this into a separate object? One can have separate objects for separate streams instead of the id association mechanism. They can expose (or be) MediaStreams and thus integrate with WebRTC. > 2. If they are placed in a separate object, can the object be associated with > multiple tags? Presumably, yes. Would that be a problem? > 3. Will this prevent declarative syntax to enable Media Source and reuse of the > <source> fallback mechanism? No more than the current solution, surely? For comparison, see the mediagroup="" attribute on <video> which implicitly creates a MediaController object. -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 12:18:01 UTC