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

RE: recording

From: Sunyang (Eric) <eric.sun@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:16:16 +0000
To: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9254B5E6361B1648AFC00BA447E6E8C32AED8264@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Bergkvist [mailto:adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15 PM
> To: Harald Alvestrand
> Cc: public-media-capture@w3.org
> Subject: Re: recording
> 
> On 2012-11-13 12:18, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> > On 11/12/2012 08:42 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:
> >>
> >> Here's a summary of what I think we agreed to in Lyon.  If we still
> >> agree to it, I will start writing it up.  (Please send comments on any
> >> or all of the points below.)
> >>
> > I think I like this. I'd like to see this as a proposal.
> >>
> >> Recording should be implemented by a separate class.  Its constructor
> >> will take a MediaStream as an argument  (we can define it to take
> >> other types as well, if we choose, but no one is suggesting any at the
> >> moment.)
> >>
> >> There are two kinds of recording:
> >>
> >> 1)incremental, in which (smaller) Blobs of data are returned to the
> >> application as they are available.
> >>
> >> 2)All-at-once, in which one big Blob of data is made available when
> >> recording is finished.
> >>
> > So are these 2 classes that both take a MediaStream as a constructor
> > argument?
> > This might be simpler than having one merged class that does both.
> 
> I read the proposal as one class with two different record methods.
> 

Right.

> /Adam
Received on Friday, 16 November 2012 09:17:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:12 UTC