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

RE: revised recording proposal

From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:49:49 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com>, "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D281BC44@GENSJZMBX01.msg.int.genesyslab.com>
  Yes, I thought about that a bit.  I don't like using generic buckets either - it seems sloppy - but I couldn't think up a compelling argument for introducing a new interface that would only duplicate functionality that was already available in the generic bucket.  

On the other hand, if the group thinks that a new interface is justified, I'll be glad to introduce one.  

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 3:47 PM
To: Jim Barnett
Cc: Mandyam, Giridhar; Timothy B. Terriberry; public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: Re: revised recording proposal

On 30 November 2012 10:47, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com> wrote:
> CustomEvent has a .detail attribute where you can stick whatever you want.

I'd really like to avoid having to use a generic bucket for these very specific data.

At this stage, there is only one burning question: Where do I get the blob from when I get a dataavailable event?
Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 20:50:18 UTC

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