- From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:31:13 +0200
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 08/21/2012 06:25 PM, Travis Leithead wrote: >> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no] >> >> Based on what we have so far in the spec, our current >> implementers' choices, arguments on the list, and the needs we >> percieve as minimal, here's a sketch of a proposal for the question >> of "what's in V1 of the spec" - the stuff that we aim towards with >> our current milestones. >> >> This implies a V2, which means that we need to define milestones >> for when we want that done. > > This could be problematic. Many of the V2 features noted in the "out" > section below, could have designs that necessitate changes to V1. I > would suggest that we at least have a good sketch of what the V2 > features will look like so that we can have confidence in locking > down the definition of some of the V1 concepts. > > I raise this point because I'm not sure we're really locked on V1 of > the MediaStream definition, and I'd hate to freeze that as-is, and > then need to adjust it in V2... :-) It is a good point! > > >> Out: >> >> * Recorder * Direct assignment to media element * Image capture >> API > > It seems to me that being able to either record or take an image > still should be in V1. Otherwise the only stable feature set is: > "look, I can view my webcam!" (but can't record it). Of course, if > WebRTC also stabilizes, than you could add "videoconferencing" to the > feature set, which would be cool. That was one of the reasons why we did start considering a v1: WebRTC depends on getUserMedia, and would need a stable version to reference. > However, I think it would be wise > for us to attempt to include a recorder/image capture API for our own > spec and scenario completeness. > >
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 17:31:41 UTC