- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 11:51:02 -0700
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 2 June 2014 09:42, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: > The WG has repeatedly rejected having more API surface to manipulating > permissions, so "getUserMedia" and "track.close" are the two controls we > have; my proposal would be making the last one a no-op, permission-wise. Yes, I object to this. I think that this more easily leads to the surprising situation where you can: a) have the camera turn on at some future point in time and perhaps more seriously: b) have a different camera turn on Both of which I find highly objectionable. I understand that you would have the "passive" indicator present for the duration, but that's still pretty surprising. I need to understand how you might need this capability. I understood Justin's mute scenario well enough. Can you actually make a case for this? --Martin p.s., track.close() releasing permissions is a perfectly good API surface. Why would you suggest that we need a different surface?
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 18:51:30 UTC