- From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:03:50 +0100
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
- CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Rich, thanks for good input! There is some more comment towards the end of this mail. On 12/13/2011 12:58 AM, Rich Tibbett wrote: > Nine months ago we (Opera) were in the middle of some early > experimentation work implementing an early proposal of the getUserMedia > proposal. We found that we had to patch the then-current WHATWG<device> > proposal with a number of additional API behaviors for when HTML media > elements are hosting Media Stream objects. > > In our early specification we defined the term 'stream mode' for when > such DOM elements are assigned Stream objects for the purposes of local > media playback. We documented the behavior of the DOM APIs for HTML > media elements operating in stream mode in [1]. > > One of the key concepts we established is that MediaStream objects, when > applied to audio/video elements, should act within a 'linear media > timeline' model (also a defined term in [1]). Such a timeline is, for > example, not seekable and has well-defined behavior in the case that the > video element is paused and resumed. When a developer interfaces with > the DOM APIs representing HTML Media elements, we define specific setter > and getter behaviors to switch off things that don't make sense in a > 'linear media timeline' model. > > For example, a developer cannot adjust the playbackRate of a live > stream, captured from a user's webcam. I think we need to review and add > these behaviors to the current specification to ensure we end up with > consistent behavior across UAs implementing our future recommendation. > > In the course of our early prototyping and also as part of the provided > spec [1] we also introduced the ability to assign Stream objects > directly to the .src of a video or audio HTML element (e.g. video.src = > stream). This was not included in the official WHATWG draft at the time > (since we didn't have window.URL.createObjectURL at that time and no-one > really knew how else we could do it). > > Right now in the W3C proposal developers are expected to indirectly mint > a new temporary URL (via window.URL.createObjectURL) to assign a > MediaStream to a video/audio element. To coincide with direct assignment > of a Stream object to a video element, our work also defined how Stream > objects that have been assigned to HTML media elements should be labeled > if or when a developer attempts to resolve the src URL/URI. We settled > on 'about:streamurl' to be a reserved, though unresolvable, about: URI, > to indicate that the media element is displaying/playing an object that > implements the MediaStream interface (and hence the media element is in > stream mode and has all the behaviors of that mode as defined in [1]). > > This direct object assignment requires less code to assign Stream > objects to video/audio elements. It works really well to date in all > Opera implementations and we'd like to apply this behavior to the W3C > spec pending further discussion and feedback. > > There are notably a number of things we might want to also discuss, such > as what we should do if particular attributes (i.e. autoplay, loop) are > included on any HTML media element declaration (but I'd assume they mean > nothing in stream mode). The documentation in [1] should be a reasonable > starting point for that discussion also. > > I notice that roc's MediaStream API Processing proposal [2] touches on a > few of these aspects to some degree also, albeit in less formal prose > right now. I guess we're all thinking along the same thing and we just > need to define the exact terms and algorithms in our specification. > > Any feedback would be appreciated. The main question is: should we add > such behaviors as these to our specification or not? Personally, I have been thinking along the lines that we must add something like the table in [1] to explain what attributes and data of the media elements [3] that have a meaning for streams, and how they should be interpreted. And [1] seems like a good starting point indeed. Then, I must admit, I saw this task as something for the webrtc wg (cc'd) rather than for this TF. Br, Stefan > > br/ Rich > > [1] > http://people.opera.com/richt/release/specs/device/o-device.html#stream-mode-behavior > > [2] > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/audio/raw-file/tip/streams/StreamProcessing.html#mediastreams > [3] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#media-elements
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 15:04:27 UTC