Re: Proposed new text for noaccess

On 2013-11-05 21:08, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 11/05/2013 08:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 5 November 2013 11:13, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>>> BTW, I'll repeat what I said before in another context: if we change
>>> getUserMedia's behaviour, I'd much prefer to see a new call that is NOT
>>> called getUserMedia, and a short Javascript snippet that shows how to
>>> emulate getUserMedia on top of the new function (which has a new name).
>> I can live with that.
>>
>> If you want a proposal, I'm willing to write something up.
> I love specific proposals :-)
>
> (and saying that "noaccess" tracks are to be treated as muted in all
> contexts except for XXX seems to me to be a good way to define "no
> access" without creating too many new concepts.)
>

Is the intention with the new proposal to replace getUserMedia() or have 
something that lives in parallel? The "muted" behavior of not yet 
granted tracks removes some of the worries that I expressed earlier.

Looking forward to a proposal.

/Adam

Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2013 09:20:30 UTC