W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Constraints and MediaRecorder

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:41:26 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLbruVWNezy_rFDmxSynGfc13EeEyTaK=X00NYyj8k2bRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Cc: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:

> I’ve pretty much lost track of what you are proposing we do. You are
> proposing we just ask the browser for a stream, it gives us whatever it
> wants, and then the app uses the setting API to figure out what the browser
> provided ? Mostly I just care that I have some way of doing this but I
> agree with Roc that not having to loop over a trial / test type interface
> makes more sense to me.
>

I think you misread me there, or maybe I wasn't clear. Sorry. I favor
looping in the application if it means a simpler API.

Anyway, if a "request and check" interface is adequate for MediaRecorder,
then we simplify things by just providing it directly instead of
indirecting through the Constraints spec --- e.g. by providing direct
getters on MediaRecorder for MIME type and image size instead of
introducing a MediaRecorderSettings object.

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w
Received on Monday, 3 February 2014 22:41:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:24 UTC