- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 07:05:54 +0100
- To: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
- CC: Anant Narayanan <anant@mozilla.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 03/13/2012 07:44 PM, Travis Leithead wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Anant Narayanan [mailto:anant@mozilla.com] >> >> As Adam correctly points out subsequently in the thread, chaining and >> bubbling don't really make sense for getUserMedia. However, they do make >> sense for a MediaStream (which could be attached to a<video> or >> <canvas>, and may want to bubble events back into the parent). Thus, if >> we add events to MediaStream, I think there's a good case for having >> them be real events. At that point, it's only a matter of consistency >> for having getUserMedia behave in a similar manner. > You don't attach a MediaStream to a<video> or<canvas>. (Yes, I know Rich > proposed the direct-assign technique, but I'm not in favor of that approach > for a number of reasons.) Forking the thread - do you care to share those reasons? > Instead, you convert the MediaStream into a persistent > in-memory URL via URL.createObjectURL. The result is a string. So, I'm really > not sure I get the "bubble events back into the parent" concept. If there were > to be such a thing, the event handlers would need to be defined on the > <video>/<img> tags themselves--having them on the MediaStream wouldn't do any > good. > >> Thanks, >> -Anant >> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 06:06:27 UTC