Re: New version of Editor's Draft

On 4/28/2012 4:29 AM, William Lin wrote:
> look forward to this recorder proposal.
> one question,  will recorder be a html5 tag similar to <video>,<audio> 
> and can be used independent of  Media Caputure or just part of Media 
> Capature to work for record MediaStream? thanks

There's some interesting/useful symmetry to having record be a 'sink' 
for a MediaStream, as opposed to a method on it (record.src = 
mediastream; record.path = blah; record.max_length = blah; etc).  It's 
certainly more future-proof. <video>/<audio> elements could be fed into 
it through a mediastream (video.captureStreamUntilEnded() from roc's 
Processing proposal, etc).

>
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Anant Narayanan <anant@mozilla.com 
> <mailto:anant@mozilla.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 4/27/12 7:09 PM, William Lin wrote:
>
>         Seems MediaStreamRecorder is removed. And all the function
>         record()
>         related is removed too.
>         No clear the story of how was this decision made.
>         Or in next step, recorder will be added?
>
>
>     I apologize, I didn't mention in my earlier email that the other
>     change was the removal of MediaStreamRecorder. We've been talking
>     on the list about removing it for a while now - once we have a new
>     proposal we'll be adding something similar to the spec.
>
>     The main problem with the old MediaStreamRecorder was that it was
>     defined in terms of a MediaStream, but it seems more desirable to
>     have such a recorder work directly with the outputs of a
>     MediaStream, such as <video>, <audio>, or even <canvas>. One of my
>     TODO items is to come up with such a proposal, which I will do as
>     soon as possible!
>
>     Thanks,
>     -Anant
>


-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org