Re: Proposal to rename and publish "getUserMedia" document

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Anant Narayanan <anant@mozilla.com> wrote:

> On 6/13/12 1:08 PM, Stefan Hakansson LK wrote:
>
>> The getUserMedia document has undergone big changes the last few months.
>> For example, constraints has been introduced, description of
>> MediaStream's have been added. getUserMedia was previously officially
>> published as part of the FPWD of PeerConnection, but we need to have a
>> stable reference for this document too, which we achieve by publication
>> as a public Working Draft.
>>
>> The chairs think this is a good time to publish the draft as a public
>> Working Draft to get feedback from people outside our community. Unless
>> there are objections to this, the plan is to start this process soon.
>>
>
> +1! However, I would like the chance to make a set of uncontroversial
> editorial changes before an FPWD.
>
>
>  Also, the current title, "getUserMedia", is not the best one! Our
>> proposal is to change this to "Media Capture and Streams".
>>
>
> Agreed. I think the name "Media Streams" as proposed by Sun Yang is
> insufficient since the document also includes a mechanism for acquiring
> media streams from hardware and other sources.
>
> Regards,
> -Anant
>
> I think there is no big difference between hardware generated stream and
remote sources.
What's more, I remember that someone propose getUserMedia get streams from
local file.

In short, they are alll streams, the only difference is one is get from
getUserMedia, others are retrieve from event.stream cast by network.

I have seen many W3C drafts, most of them in 2 words, websocket, web
message, canvas 2D, microdata etc.

But I am ok, if you want to set the title as "media capture and streams",
just think it is not easy for mapping to API names.......





-- 
Yang
Huawei