- 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