RE: updates to requirements document

To summarize the discussion so far:  it sounds like we agree that the App  will sometimes need direct access to the capture stream, and at other times will want the capture streamed directly to a file or some other sink.  The App may also want  to combine the two (stream to a file while also directly accessing the capture.)   The main question is how much we need to define in our spec as opposed to pointing to other pre-existing specs.   Does that sound right to you, Eric and Milan?

 

-          Jim

 

From: Sunyang (Eric) [mailto:eric.sun@huawei.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 2:18 AM
To: Young, Milan; Jim Barnett; public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: 答复: updates to requirements document

 

For “the ability to view the media stream in its encoded form”, I think we’d better reference media source API

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html

 

The second paragraph you mentioned is more like the style of media source, welcome to html-media task force for discussion.

 

Yang

Huawei

 

发件人: Young, Milan [mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com] 
发送时间: 2012年7月6日 14:02
收件人: Sunyang (Eric); Jim Barnett; public-media-capture@w3.org
主题: RE: updates to requirements document

 

I believe that there are several use cases that do not require exposing the bits of the media stream to the Application layer.  So I think it’s going too far to say that transport is always the burden of the Application.  I think a better way to phrase that is to say that the Application should always have the ability to view the media stream in its encoded form.

 

The tricky part is defining a canonical media form.  Will this be on sample intervals, fixed block size, logical compression boundaries, … ?  I don’t have a strong opinion, but I suspect fixed size blocks of data (ie N bytes at a time regardless of what those bytes represent) will be easiest to spec and most useful to the largest range of use cases.

 

Thanks

 

From: Sunyang (Eric) [mailto:eric.sun@huawei.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 7:50 PM
To: Jim Barnett; Young, Milan; public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: 答复: updates to requirements document

 

I wonder how clear the division should be.

I suggest we do not touch the transport/upload part of use cases, but we can remove all application responsibility which not relative with capture/permission from the requirement, I think this is feasible, and easy for improvement.

 

Yang

Huawei

 

发件人: Jim Barnett [mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com] 
发送时间: 2012年7月6日 8:41
收件人: Young, Milan; public-media-capture@w3.org
主题: RE: updates to requirements document

 

That sounds reasonable to me.  I take you to be saying that transport/uploading are the Application’s responsibility, and that the only requirement on the UA is that it make the encoded representation available.  That gives a clear division of responsibilities.  Are there other opinions?  (My guess is that many of the requirements are worded incorrectly.)

 

-          Jim

 

From: Young, Milan [mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 7:37 PM
To: Jim Barnett; public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: RE: updates to requirements document

 

Hello Jim, thanks for putting this together.

 

The 1st requirement under REMOTE MEDIA currently states: “The UA must be able to transmit media to one or more remote sites and to receive media from them.”  My concern is that the language is insufficient to handle all of the scenarios put forward in the section titled “Capturing a media stream” under “Design Considerations and Remarks”.  These are:

1)      capture a video and upload to a video sharing site

2)      capture a picture for my user profile picture in a given web app

3)      capture audio for a translation site

4)      capture a video chat/conference

 

The first two transfer types would typically be handled as a bulk transfer after capture completes, which is a good fit for conventional transports like HTTP.  The fourth type is an obvious match to WebRTC.  The third type is a mix of the two.  The application prefers real time transmission, but is probably willing to sacrifice a few seconds of latency in the interest of reliable transport.  Something like an application-specific streaming protocol over WebSockets seems appropriate.

 

My request could be satisfied with the following new requirement: “The UA must allow the Application to access an encoded representation of the media while capture is in progress.”  Implicit in this request is that the UA will not always explicitly handle media transfer, but I think that could be inferred from the other requirements.

 

Does this sound reasonable?

 

Thanks

 

 

From: Jim Barnett [mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 6:36 AM
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: updates to requirements document

 

I have filled out the  requirements section in the use case document (http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/media-stream-capture/scenarios.html)  and added links from the scenarios to the requirements. I have not modified any existing content or taken anything out of the document.

 

There’s still more work to do:  

 

1) there are some free floating requirements that were suggested on the list but not incorporated in any of the scenarios.  Do we want to incorporate them into the scenarios or leave them as is?  

2)  The scenarios contain lists of items that are similar to the requirements.  Do we want to remove them, or leave them in and modify them to match the requirements more closely?  

3) I have organized the requirements into four classes: permissions, local media, remote media, and media capture.  Maybe it would  be better to have a different classification or a single list.  

 

Let me know what you think. 

 

-          Jim