Re: [mediacapture-main] Clarify getUserMedia({audio:{deviceId:{exact:<audiooutput_device>}}}) in this specification mandates capability to capture of audio output device - not exclusively microphone input device (#650)


> Perhaps an extra clarification can be added there to indicate that "video or audio input" refers to devices marked as videoinput or audioinput in the results provided by enumerateDevices. The absence of that extra text so far has not led to any inconsistent behavior across various browsers. Feel free to send a PR for review with text along those lines, though.

Your acknowledgment that the current language is capable of more than one interpretation re `"audiooutput"` and "headphones" meaning capturing audio is part of this specification. Will not be filing that PR. From perspective here the language indicates capture of audio output is specified, at least it is not clear that that capability is not intended. The prerogative here is to use that language to capture audio. If you bbelieve there is room to close that interpretation, then clarify the specification yourself, as that what this issue is asking for. Would file a PR to make it clear the specification _does_ include language already to indicate capturing audio output, not that it does not.

> The script there is broken for Chromium because it assumes "audiooutput" devices can be captured by getUserMedia(), which is not the case in Chromium or any other browser

At *nix the code works as expected. 

Have not used *indows in many years and have not used Mac at all.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that *indows and Mac also provide such functionality. Evidently not. They should, per this specification, is the perspective here.

> Feel free to file a feature request for it at

Already did. You closed the issue as `WontFix`.

> What you have here is a feature request for Chromium to expose "Monitor of ..." devices the way Firefox does so that they can be used by getUserMedia(). I think that's a valid feature request for Chromium, since it does not support it, but it does not need any adjustment to the spec

Kindly re-open the above linked Chromium bug and answer this question: Why should that functionality _not_ be available to users? Disregard the specification or not, the functionality is what matters, implementers do whatever they want anyway, irrespective of any specification, whether by omission, deliberate indifference to any spec, or by way of their arbitrary, undocumented "experiments".

GitHub Notification of comment by guest271314
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2019 01:54:04 UTC