- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:52:54 -0800
- To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
- Cc: Chris Wendt <chris-w3c@chriswendt.net>, "public-orca@w3.org" <public-orca@w3.org>
On 19 February 2014 15:44, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote: > I think we still need scale for simulcast and maxBitrate for cases where you > want to constrain bandwidth even when it's available. And priority vs. > resources seems pretty similar. I'd like to take simulcast out actually. I think that aside from some bindings necessary to get playback right, you can achieve simulcast transmission (what we are talking about here) by having multiple tracks with different resolution constraints. I don't think that means fewer options sadly. Maybe we can also discuss minimums. I don't think that it's worthwhile having minimum values initially, and maybe not ever, though I'm open to the idea. And I think that it's a universally applicable thing across all axes. I can see cases for minimums on all three: frame rate (sign language), resolution (1x1, my image recognition can't deal), and quality (my eyes, ow, my eyes).
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2014 23:53:22 UTC