- From: Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:10:11 -0500
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
There's certainly value in letting the user know that the media can't be recorded. I think that the core concept of an identity constraint belongs in MediaCapture. Then the other specs can define exactly what that constraint means in their case. - Jim On 2/25/2014 2:48 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote: > On 2014-02-24 19:59, Martin Thomson wrote: >> On 24 February 2014 07:31, Stefan Håkansson LK >> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: >>> But to get me on the right page: the idea with connecting the identity >>> with the tracks is to be able to inform the user in the permission >>> prompt that the media can only be sent to a certain user. Is that right? >> Correct. I believe that "trust" is something that should be scoped >> appropriately, always. > I agree. > > I think (as Cullen says in another input) that we could move all of it > to the WebRTC document as long this deals only with communication. > > But I was thinking about other use cases. Would there be a value if an > app could ask for access to the camera/microphone, and it was clear to > the user that it could not be sent anywhere or accessed in any way? > > I was thinking about use cases like using the camera and display like a > mirror. I don't know if there is any value in this kind of > functionality, but if so I think it belongs in the gUM document. > > -- Jim Barnett Genesys
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 14:11:08 UTC