Re: revised recording proposal

On 11/28/2012 05:08 AM, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:
> Hello,
> I'll echo what has been stated in that I also like where this is headed.
> 1.It has already been pointed out that an onrecordingerror event 
> handler needs to be specified in the IDL.
> 2.timeSlice appears to be optional from the developer perspective, but 
> would it be permissible for a minimum timeSlice to be used from the UA 
> perspective?  In other words, when the developer does not specify a 
> timeSlice, can the UA still return data at pre-set intervals?
> 3.To clarify, is the returned Blob consistent with the definition in 
> If so, we run a risk of having 
> a dependency on a spec that has not progressed significantly along in 
> standardization.
We're already depending on HTML5 (for <video>, among other things), and 
HTML5 in turn depends on Blob, so I don't think we're adding any risk here.
> 4.If we are in fact staying consistent with the Blob definition in 
> File API, then it would seem to me that the Formats dictionary as 
> defined should be consistent with how content types are indicated with 
> Blobs. Media type as defined in RFC 2046 should be sufficient in this 
> case, and is leveraged for the current definition of Blob.type.
> 5.Can you (or anyone else on the mailing list) articulate why a Blob 
> is returned versus an ArrayBuffer?
> 6.That being said, I think at least for Version 1 of this spec the 
> group should consider having the recording directly write to a file (a 
> la Android MediaRecorder - 
> or 
> iOS AVAudioRecorder - 
> and move a Blob-based recording interface to Version 2.
Were you thinking of using the File interface (the same spec you 
referred to), or of something else?

Javascript in general is isolated from the file system.


Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 11:19:59 UTC