- From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 15:49:38 -0700
- To: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- 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 Feb 3, 2014, at 3:41 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > 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. Oops - my apologies - thanks for clarifying. So help me understand what the code would look like - could you give a rough sketch of what the code would be to get 4x3 aspect ratio and 15 fps. > > 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 22:50:05 UTC