- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 06:49:54 +0200
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
- Message-ID: <55557AF2.5060106@alvestrand.no>
On 05/15/2015 01:26 AM, Charlie Kehoe wrote: > Perhaps the most practical thing to do is to notate this as a lower > bound on latency. The purpose is to allow less latency-sensitive > applications to express their tolerance for higher latency. It will be > pretty tricky to guarantee a latency upper bound when running a > complex audio stack on arbitrary hardware. Yes, it is pretty tricky. Which is why I think it would be most useful (most likely to succeed) as an "ideal" constraint - "here's what I want, but I can live with not getting it". But I don't get what a "lower bound on latency" would mean. Would it mean that the application wouldn't tolerate the browser sending it audio sooner than this time? That would seem a bit bizarre. > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:32 PM Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com > <mailto:jib@mozilla.com>> wrote: > > I meant the latency attributed to the audio buffer only. > to Jan-Ivar's comment: I have no idea what part of the delay can be attributed to "the audio buffer" - real implementations usually are more complex than this. Let's specify constraints in a way that relates to what the user wants, not how it's implemented.
Received on Friday, 15 May 2015 04:50:27 UTC