[Bug 17082] Discuss whether Media Source methods should be in separate object

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17082

--- Comment #4 from Aaron Colwell <acolwell@chromium.org> 2012-05-25 15:27:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I must admit to speaking before thinking things through. A full review of the
> spec is something I've been meaning to do, and one of the things I've been
> meaning to look hard at is why the id strings are used, since it looks rather
> out-of-place to me. Elsewhere in HTMLMediaElement where there are different
> tracks of some kind (textTracks, audioTracks, videoTracks) each of those are
> separate objects. That seems a lot more natural to me, but I can't answer your
> questions without reading the entire spec.

I'd definitely appreciate your input.
The ID strings evolved out of the desire to be able to handle audio and video
streams from separate files. We needed a way to identify which byte stream was
being appended to. We could handle this with multiple source objects that get
registered with some sort of source list. I think that would bring things in
line with the xxxTracks lists.

As we've been updating our Media Source implementation, tests, & demos, I've
started to become less convinced that an ID string is the right path. Just the
simple fact that I have to pick an ID value to use for even the simplest muxed
stream case feels wrong. It ususally ends up being something like 'SourceId1'
which is arbitrary and doesn't provide any value. Using an object would make
this go away.

I'll start working on some new IDL that removes the ID and introduces an
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 Friday, 25 May 2012 15:30:50 UTC