W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture-logs@w3.org > December 2016

Re: [mediacapture-record] Bugs in isTypeSupported() example

From: ddorwin via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 20:20:46 +0000
To: public-media-capture-logs@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-265844486-1481228444-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@alvestrand, where is this defined? Walking the tree was mostly 
theoretical, but I don't think implementations consider `"video/webm"`
 to be fully specified. For example, Chrome returns `"maybe"` rather 
than `"probably"` just as we do for `"video/mp4"`. "maybe" is also 
specified in the container guidelines referenced in 
https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-record/issues/94#issuecomment-264611914.

I think the definition should be reevaluated, especially given 
conflicting information and implementations. Generic language like 
that referenced in #92 would avoid this being a problem with the 
recording interface (If `"video/webm"` is fully specified then it 
would be technically sufficient. However, as a practical matter, I 
would strongly encourage implementations of this API to treat is as 
not fully specified as appears to be the case for implementations of 
other APIs.)

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by ddorwin
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-record/issues/94#issuecomment-265844486
 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2016 20:20:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:27:30 UTC