- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:49:28 +1200
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Cc: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOp6jLZRjrhakb2NE6RpDCmfs6NqYtBhSjt9BABVg0rmQ+JSKQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:26 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"? > Yes, except that createMediaStreamDestination() doesn't work for OfflineAudioContexts and "new MediaRecorder(audioNode)" does. Including a possible error exception when encountering ChannelSplitterNode? > With the above "definition", ChannelSplitterNode is not a problem; the 0'th output (the first channel) of audioNode gets recorded and the others are ignored. We'd just need to say that in the spec. If there are two ways of doing the same thing, I'd like to have completely > consistent behaviour rather than "almost consistent behaviour". Of course. 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 Thursday, 28 August 2014 01:49:58 UTC