Re: revised recording proposal

Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:
> Please point out the requirements in that state that media processing be built into the recording function.

Who said anything about "media processing be built-in"? I thought we 
were talking about recording. Having the ability to return compressed 
data incrementally in a form that can be decoded as-is is certainly a 
desirable feature that has nothing to do with "media processing" (see, 
for example, Scenario 3.5 in the document you link to, which AFAICT 
requires this feature). If you thought Jim was asking for access to 
_uncompressed_, raw buffers, then I agree that has little to do with the 
recording API, but that's not been what we've been talking about, as far 
as I'm aware.

Received on Thursday, 29 November 2012 23:47:57 UTC