W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Slides for MediastreamTracks (Re: Detailf for teleconf tomorrow)

From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 12:03:23 +0100
Message-ID: <50C07B7B.4040608@ericsson.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
CC: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 2012-12-05 17:38, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Changing subject as always....
> thanks a lot!
> q: with this interface, isn't the division into a set of video tracks
> and a set of audio tracks simply an implementation detail that the API
> doesn't have to spec?
> IE it would be equally valid if there was only one bunch of tracks, and
> the get*tracks functions just grepped through it.
> I like having implementation details be unobservable....

I simply picked the two-bucket-approach as a way to describe the 
behavior. Yes, it would be equally valid to have one bucket and filter 
it to provide the output to the different get* methods. Perhaps that 
approach would be easier (=require adding slightly less spec text) to 
extend with new track types.

I general, I see the algorithms as: if you follow the algorithm you are 
compliant. Also, if you implement this in an other way that produces the 
exact same result as following the algorithm; you're also compliant.

Received on Thursday, 6 December 2012 11:03:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:13 UTC