- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:24:51 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 25/10/13 20:15, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 25 October 2013 11:04, Stefan Håkansson LK > <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: >> On 25/10/13 19:04, Martin Thomson wrote: >>> On 25 October 2013 03:43, Stefan Håkansson LK >>> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: >>>>> Is there value in having the UA police whether or not one can add tracks >>>>> to an UA-constructed MediaStream? >>> >>> I have no reasons to prevent this. I appreciate the reasons roc >>> outlines, but honestly, most of the real machinery here is on the >>> tracks, not the container. >> >> The only case when I can see it could matter is: > > I'm fairly sure that wouldn't happen. Since the JS is going to see a > fixed view of the current state of the streams (that's the contract > the browsers need to guarantee regardless of what we define), it will > either see track X or not. If it sees it, it can add it. If it checks before adding, it can act depending on that. In my example it didn't - and adding a track that is already there will just silently fail IIUC. So if it is removed the second after it will be gone. But as I said: it is a really artificial example - not realistic.
Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 18:29:07 UTC