Re: Future of SourceType - Call For Consensus?

I've reviewed the thread that came from this, and have also reviewed the 
spec proposed at
https://github.com/fluffy/w3c-screen-share

One interesting thing about that proposal is that it does *not* extend 
SourceTypeEnum - instead it defines a new enum called MediaSourceEnum:

enum MediaSourceEnum {
     "camera",
     "browser",
     "application",
     "screen"
};

This seems to underscore the idea that SourceTypeEnum does not have an 
use case, and we should remove it - if the primary use case suggested 
for it goes off to do something else rather than using the extension 
point, that's a hint that we might not need it.

I suggest, based on the discussion and the proposal, that we delete 
SourceTypeEnum and all references to it from the getusermedia spec, and 
leave the selection of sources for screen capture to the screen capture 
spec.

Does that seem reasonable?


On 07/04/2014 10:01 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> At the moment, we have 3 bugs that touch on SourceType, listed here:
>
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=sourcetype&list_id=40270 
>
>
> Reminder: SourceType is this enum:
>
> enum SourceTypeEnum {
>     "none",
>     "camera",
>     "microphone"
> };
>
> At the moment, we have no part of the spec that depends on this - the 
> only thing you can do with it is to read the attribute on a track, and 
> ask for specific types via a constraint (which is useless for "none", 
> and only has a single possible value for video and audio tracks).
>
> It's been suggested as a future extension point (such as specifying "I 
> want a screen capture"), but experience with future extension points 
> is that it's very easy to get them wrong unless you already know the 
> extension you want when you design them.
>
> We've had very little comment on the bugs so far - so I'm trying for a 
> call on the list:
>
> ***Proposal: SourceType should be removed from getusermedia version 
> 1.0.***
>
> If we don't hear anyone arguing in favour of keeping it for a week 
> (July 11), we'll take that as permission to remove (there's always the 
> possibility to reinstate).
>
> If we get arguments ..... we'll take it from there.
>
>        Harald, chair hat on
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:07:49 UTC