- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:08:22 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:34:49 +0200, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 14:15 +0200, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >> Something like <http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-api-1.0/> might be a >> better >> approach, even though I don't think that API is suitable for >> implementation in browsers as-is. > > The spec says "The API is implemented in a user agent (e.g., browser or > browser plugin) and exposed as a JavaScript API (using the WebIDL > JavaScript binding)." > > Yet, the API spec is silent on basic stuff required of browser API > design such as saying what happens if getProperty is called on a media > element whose external media resource hasn't been loaded yet. This and > your assessment that the API isn't suitable for implementation in > browsers make me wonder if there are there any browser vendors who are > planning to implement this API and are carefully reviewing it for > suitability for implementation in browsers. (It seems like a bad idea to > spec an API for a class of products if there isn't interest in > implementation and review among vendors of the class of products.) > > Are there browser vendors planning to implement this API? > I actually read through most of it a year or so ago and evaluated it. There are lots of little things that are a bit atypical for Web API's, like having a separate interface for pretty much everything: FrameSize, Language, Copyright, etc. There's a single global namespace for interfaces, so exposing these seems like a bad idea. However, the biggest problem is that it provides a unified view of all tracks of a media resource, instead of per-track as we'd really want to have it. There is a NumTracks interface, but that doesn't seem to solve the problem. -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 09:08:52 UTC