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

Re: Moving on with noaccess/peerIdentity

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:39:45 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CF569D1@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 2014-02-06 16:49, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 6 February 2014 01:01, Stefan Håkansson LK
> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> The pull request describes the relation between identity protected
>> tracks and PeerConnection; but perhaps all of that should be in the
>> WebRTC doc? Otherwise we set a precedence here and would have to
>> describe what happens for all uses of MediaStreams and 'Tracks
>> (Recorder, ImageCapture, what else comes down the road).
> I really don't mind where the text lives.  In theory WebRTC could
> include all the relevant text, amending the gUM objects accordingly.

My gut feeling is that we should do that. In gUM we describe how 
identity tagged tracks work with what is defined in gUM (getUserMedia, 
cloning of tracks, audio/video elements); how it works with stuff 
defined elsewhere (Recorder, ImageCapture, PeerConnection, ...) should 
be described there.

> I don't mind.
>> Nit: in the pull request it is not mentioned what happens if a
>> MediaStreamTrack with peerIdentity is cloned. That must be described.
> Harald made the same comment.  Yes.

Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 17:40:10 UTC

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