Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] WebCodecs (again!) (#612)

Sorry this took so long!

@kenchris @rhiaro and I discussed this in our F2F. Here is a summary of our discussion.

1) [Temporal representation](https://github.com/w3c/webcodecs/issues/122), we've discussed this and an integer representation seems to be the most adequate given the tradeoffs and risks that are associated with using a real representation.
2) [Window or Worker?](https://github.com/w3c/webcodecs/issues/211) Our take on the discussion is that we should start with Worker and see if there are enough use-cases and demand out there that warrant it to be exposed to Window.
3) [Transfer / detach?](https://github.com/w3c/webcodecs/issues/104) We read the discussion and making the transfer opt-in seems reasonable - although we did lean more towards implicit transfer and make it so that opt-out is explicit. (Basically, zero garbage unless requested) But there is the risk of this behavior being inconsistent with the rest of the platform.

[ImageDecoder](https://github.com/w3c/webcodecs/pull/152) was an interesting review. API-design-wise, this felt a lot more like a video decoder API that "supports" images (not surprising given that this is exactly what it is), but we did have some mixed feelings about the ergonomics of the API. What mechanism would allow the user to say, decode an image and put it into an HTMLImageElement? (This seemed like something that people might do)

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/612#issuecomment-838092138