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

RE: revised recording proposal

From: Mandyam, Giridhar <mandyam@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:20:10 +0000
To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>, "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAC8DBE4E9704C41BCB290C2F3CC921A16357930@nasanexd01h.na.qualcomm.com>
Please do that - add the use case and appropriate requirements and then the group can have a chance to review.  As I mentioned before, the text as written is unclear as to whether Alice uploads the video immediately after recording.

If we are not able to leverage a stable use cases and requirements doc then we are aiming at a moving target.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Barnett [mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 1:42 PM
To: Mandyam, Giridhar; Timothy B. Terriberry; public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: RE: revised recording proposal

Requirement 3.3 specifies real-time video processing during capture, as the following sentences make clear (notice that Alice uploads the video as soon as recording is over):

 "Alice is now ready; she enables the webcam, a video preview (to see herself), changes the camera's resolution down to 320x200, starts a video capture, and holds up the blue ball, moving it around to show that the image-tracking code is working. After recording for 30 seconds, Alice uploads the video to the assignment upload page using her class account."

And in any case, if that's not clear enough, we can always add another use case.  I've never heard anyone say that the use cases doc was finished.

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Mandyam, Giridhar [mailto:mandyam@quicinc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 4:05 PM
To: Timothy B. Terriberry; public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: RE: revised recording proposal

Please point out the requirements in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/media-stream-capture/scenarios.html that state that media processing be built into the recording function.

-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy B. Terriberry [mailto:tterriberry@mozilla.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 1:03 PM
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: Re: revised recording proposal

Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:
> I am sorry - I don't believe a recording API should be used to enable
 > real-time processing.  I certainly do not think it should be used for any

Well, this is the use case that Jim, Milan, and probably others are actually interested in (myself included), so I believe you may be in the minority in your belief. The current proposal suggests that both this use case and the file-at-once use case have a lot in common, and we'd be foolish not to take advantage of that.

 > audio stream processing for ASR.  This is what WebAudio is for, and we should  > work with the Audio WG if their current specification is unsuitable for what  > you believe is required for speech recognition.  But we have a call next week  > - maybe we can discuss this further during that time.

Encoding/decoding of audio belongs at the end-points of any processing graph, i.e., in MediaStreams, which are the domain of _this_ Task Force. 
To say nothing of the fact that a solution that only works for audio is pretty poor. But you can go venue shopping if you want. Let us know how that works out for you.
Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 00:07:06 UTC

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