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

Re: [media cap] 1st draft agenda for telco

From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:02:17 +0100
Message-ID: <4F327259.8060708@ericsson.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
CC: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 02/08/2012 07:13 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 10:06 AM, Travis Leithead wrote:
>> Rich brought up a topic a while ago that may merit some discussion,
>> as I'm also interested in the same:
>> Rationale for keeping the definition of the MediaStream interface
>> in the WebRTC spec.
>> I know that both PeerConnection and getUserMedia are entry points
>> to get/create media streams. So I'd like to start a conversation
>> about which spec should define the MediaStream interface and why.
> We've been over this before (thread "Defining the split..." starting
> on Dec 7). It petered out pretty quickly, with comments only from
> you, me and Rich Tibbett (who started the thread, and then fell
> silent).
> I'd like to hear from more people before declaring that it's
> interesting to reopen the issue. (reviewing the thread, I also see
> that I did not respond to your last questions on the thread; do you
> want to reopen those, or have they become overtaken by events in the
> meantime?)
> Harald
I will add touching on this topic to the agenda, I don't think we should
aim at resolving it at the meeting, but at least express opinions and
reasons (e.g. why we should change the split).

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 13:05:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:08 UTC