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

Re: MediaStreams and canPlayType

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 19:58:49 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2m4LwTxV0zg8xGBhf+W28SeWSf0Tkkv+deVxwREyhPcNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Cc: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
How about: Introduce an analogous canReceiveType() function on PeerConnection?
Maybe even also a canSendType() ?

I know, that's not gUM, but I don't think it really matters for gUM.


On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK
<stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
> I recently came across a WebRTC site that used video.canPlayType to
> check up front if the endpoint was compatible with their service or not.
> Our document says nothing about this, and I think it should (but I'm not
> sure what it should say).
> Off the top of my head there are a couple of paths we could follow:
> #1: state that canPlayType is unsuitable to check compatibility with
> MediaStreams of a certain format and that it can be assumed that
> anything the PeerConnection can negotiate can be played (as well as of
> course any strictly locally generated media). The follow up question is
> of course how you check if the PeerConnection will be able to decode
> your network streams without doing a call set up with negotiation, I
> guess there the answer would be to use createOffer and parse the SDP.
> #2: Define strings (mime-types?) that can be used with canPlayType to
> see if the video element can play the MediaStream format in question.
> Should we do something about this, and if so, #1, #2 or something else?
> Stefan
Received on Friday, 17 October 2014 08:59:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:30 UTC