- From: Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:35:44 -0400
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <5E12C8FD-E486-408C-AC9F-F005638D0D97@gmail.com>
The current draft cites the addition of a Track during recording as an example of the kind of thing that could cause the MediaRecorder to raise a fatal error: IllegalStreamModification. Maybe this case needs more discussion, but the current language doesn't allow the Recorder to continue ignoring the new Track. Jim Barnett Genesys > On Aug 27, 2014, at 12:05 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: > >> On 08/27/2014 05:57 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: >> Is a MediaStream (and Recorder) going to be happy about having its number of channels changed in mid-stream? > > MediaStreams can have tracks added and removed at any time; they're rather flexible. > > Recorder has certain issues with that, since some of the formats we want to record to don't do things like multiple video tracks where some of them start midstream. > > The recorder spec will have to say what it does when such things happen (either error out or continue recording only on the tracks present at initialization). > >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: >>>> On 08/27/2014 03:35 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >>>> BTW as far as "details to be worked out", I don't think there's anything new here to figure out (although there is a bit more text to write). "new MediaRecorder(audioNode)" should behave almost exactly like "var dest = audioNode.context.createMediaStreamDestination(); audioNode.connect(dest); new MediaRecorder(dest.stream);". The only edge case I can think of is handling ChannelSplitterNode. >>> >>> If it should behave "almost exactly like", can we define it to behave "exactly like"? >>> >>> Including a possible error exception when encountering ChannelSplitterNode? >>> >>> If there are two ways of doing the same thing, I'd like to have completely consistent behaviour rather than "almost consistent behaviour". >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> -- >>>> oIo otoeololo oyooouo otohoaoto oaonoyooonoeo owohooo oioso oaonogoroyo >>>> owoiotoho oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro owoiololo oboeo >>>> osouobojoeocoto otooo ojouodogomoeonoto.o oAogoaoiono,o oaonoyooonoeo owohooo >>>> osoaoyoso otooo oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro,o o‘oRoaocoao,o’o oioso >>>> oaonosowoeoroaoboloeo otooo otohoeo ocooouoroto.o oAonodo oaonoyooonoeo owohooo >>>> osoaoyoso,o o‘oYooouo ofooooolo!o’o owoiololo oboeo oiono odoaonogoeoro ooofo >>>> otohoeo ofoioroeo ooofo ohoeololo. >
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2014 17:36:16 UTC