- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 04:57:38 -0700
- To: w3ctag/design-reviews <design-reviews@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/625/843106845@github.com>
Since I was confused and created confusion in terms of the relationship with #609, I thought I would summarize what I understand about this particular design review (at the request of @LeaVerou and @kenchris I was chatting with this morning): * the proposal in this issue hasn't been discussed (let alone endorsed) by the WebRTC Working Group * the proposal in this issue addresses similar needs as the ones identified for the `getViewportMedia` API (on which #609 focuses) but proposes a different solution * the proposal in this issue is essentially the equivalent of the API defined by the WebRTC Working Group [getDisplayMedia](https://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-screen-share/), but with a specific hint to suggest the current browser tab should be captured - which as @jan-ivar [commented on](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/625#issuecomment-840699606) probably reduces the effectiveness of the mitigation set by `getDisplayMedia()` to avoid giving too much control to the API-calling-page on what is being captured The motivation I understand behind the proposal in this issue is that getting the security model being developed for `getViewportMedia` (which requires any embedded resources to adopt & deploy new HTTP headers) is likely to be very challenging. I'm mentioning this in case the TAG would like to chime in more generally on other approaches that might make it easier to deploy `getViewportMedia`. -- 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/625#issuecomment-843106845
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2021 11:57:59 UTC