- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 18:24:12 +0100
- To: Steven Morris <smorris@Espial.com>, "public-tvcontrol@w3.org" <public-tvcontrol@w3.org>
Hi Steve,
Le 05/12/2016 à 16:04, Steven Morris a écrit :
[...]
> Another alternative is to fully take the approach described by
> getUserMedia(), which does support most of what we want to do, but
> requires using the MediaStreamTrack interface for most of the
> operations. We would either have to extend MediaDeviceInfo to introduce
> a getChannels() method and other TV-specific APIs and events, or define
> our exisitng APIs in a way that is compatible with this approach.
Regarding alignment with getUserMedia, I think the TV Control Working
Group should get in touch with the Media Capture task force of the
Device and Sensors WG and WebRTC WG for feedback. In some ways, this
seems to be the "intended design". At the same time, some of it feels
odd. Below is a draft message that I propose to send to that task force.
Any comment on this message and questions it raises?
=====
The TV Control Working Group is re-modeling the TV Control API
specification around sources. That new model is well aligned with the
model used in Media Capture and Streams. In fact, it would seem possible
to re-use Media Capture and Streams interfaces as-is. However, some
details do not seem entirely right when we do that, and we would like to
get your feedback on the following questions.
Context
-----
The TV Control API specification defines an API for sourcing audio and
video media, such as TV and radio from broadcast, IPTV, or other
sources, and allows presentation of the media using the <video> and
<audio> HTML elements. The API typically produces MediaStreams, with
methods to switch from one TV/radio channel to the other, and various
classes to retrieve associated channel and program metadata.
The current API is designed around the notion of tuners but the group
agreed to a re-design centered on the notion of sources. To keep things
simple, a TV source is something attached to a broadcast signal (which
could come through a cable, terrestrial antennas, satellites, etc.) that
can be tuned to a specific channel to produce a MediaStream, composed of
a set of MediaStreamTracks for that channel. User may switch the source
to another channel at any time.
Looking at it from a getUserMedia perspective, it seems possible to
consider TV sources as input devices, and channels as a constraint that
could be applied to the main video track. This would lead to the
following code:
var source = null;
navigator.mediaDevices.enumerateDevices()
.then(function (devicesInfo) {
source = devicesInfo.find(function (deviceInfo) {
// Or use "getCapabilities" to detect support for the "tvchannel"
// constraint if kind cannot be extended?
return deviceInfo.kind === 'tvsource';
});
return source.getChannels();
})
.then(function (channels) {})
var channel = channels[0];
secondChannel = channels[1];
navigator.mediaDevices.getUserMedia({
video: {
deviceId: source.deviceId,
tvchannel: channel
}
})
})
.then(function (stream) {
tvStream = stream;
// Render the stream
document.getElementById('video').srcObject = tvStream;
// Switch to another channel
return tvStream.getVideoTracks()[0].applyConstraints({ tvchannel:
secondChannel });
})
.then(function () {
// Stop stream
tvStream.getVideoTracks()[0].stop();
});
This triggers a few questions though.
Questions
-----
1. Attaching to "enumerateDevices"?
--
We need some way to enumerate the TV/radio sources but it feels a bit
strange to mix TV/radio sources with camera/microphone sources. Use
cases that want to get media from a camera are roughly disjoint from use
cases that want to tune to a particular TV channel. Shouldn't APIs
rather be separated?
If not, what would be the proper way to distinguish TV sources? Should
we introduce a new "tvsource" kind of source for instance?
2. Channel constraint at the track level?
--
Similarly, it does not seem natural to apply the constraint to change
the channel at the track level. The channel "constraint" rather seems to
apply at the MediaStream level, as it is going to affect all tracks. Are
we trying to push the constraint model too far?
The same comment applies to the "stop" method, which again is going to
affect all tracks of the MediaStream in our case.
3. TV specific semantics?
--
While it works, is also seems counter-intuitive to "apply a constraint"
to switch from one channel to another. Developers would probably rather
expect something like a "tuneToChannel" method instead.
4. Extending or wrapping MediaStream?
--
The TV Control API extends MediaStream to add buffering. This seems to
preserve the spirit of MediaStreams and there has already been exchanges
about that in the past.
We may need to introduce other attributes at that level, such as an
"isRecordable" property to tell whether the channel may be recorded.
This is also where the "stop" method mentioned above would fit. Such
extensions seem of different nature. We're wondering whether it could be
preferable to introduce an extra layer that wraps the MediaStream and
exposes TV specific properties.
Alternative proposal
-----
All in all, an alternative proposal that separates the APIs, moves
operations back to the source level, and creates a wrapping tuner class
around MediaStream could lead to the following code:
var source = null;
var secondChannel = null;
var tvTuner = null;
navigator.tv.getSources()
.then(function (sources) {
source = sources[0];
return source.getChannels();
})
.then(function (channels) {
var channel = channels[0];
secondChannel = channels[1];
return source.tuneToChannel(channel);
})
.then(function (tuner)) {
tvTuner = tuner;
// Render the stream
document.getElementById('video').srcObject = tvTuner.stream;
// Switch the source to another channel, re-using the same tuner
return source.tuneToChannel(secondChannel, tuner);
})
.then(function () {
// Stop stream and release resource
tvTuner.stop();
});
Note we would be happy to schedule a call as needed to clarify our
questions.
Thanks,
Francois.
Received on Friday, 9 December 2016 17:24:25 UTC