RE: types for direct assignment to media elements

A Blob has a fixed duration doesn’t it, so it would behave more like a file than a MediaStream, wouldn’t it?  If that’s the case, the language could get tricky and I would just as soon wait to add Blob.


-          Jim

From: rocallahan@gmail.com [mailto:rocallahan@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:24 AM
To: Jim Barnett
Cc: public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: Re: types for direct assignment to media elements

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com<mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>> wrote:
When we add direct assignment to media elements to the MediaCapture spec, do we want to allow things other than MediaStreams to be assigned? (Blobs would be a candidate.)   If we want to allow other  types, do we have a specific list that we want to allow?

We should allow Blobs but that doesn't have to be done right away.
We'll also want to allow MediaSource, but that can be specified elsewhere.
 If we do this, what should  the IDL look like?  Do we have to define exactly how direct assignment works for each type?

Defining how the source objects behave should be able to share most of the logic with createObjectURL and the usage of that URL.
I think you can write something like "attribute (Blob or MediaStream) srcObject;"

Rob
--
q“qIqfq qyqoquq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qyqoquq,q qwqhqaqtq qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqeqmq.q qAqnqdq qiqfq qyqoquq qdqoq qgqoqoqdq qtqoq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qaqrqeq qgqoqoqdq qtqoq qyqoquq,q qwqhqaqtq qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq qdqoq qtqhqaqtq.q"