Re: [mediacapture-screen-share] Identification of Captured Application By Capturer (#166)

The actions proposal is based on interest from 'capturer', I haven't heard any interest from 'capturee'. That puts this API at risk. To be successful, this API should be as good if not better than the out-of-band approach 'capturee' are apparently planning to use.
Piggy backing on MediaSession is a way to reduce the adoption risk/burden as this is an adopted API, provided we can find the right security model.

> I do not believe it makes sense to **force** two applications

As I said, this gives the choice, existing communication channels can continue to be used.

> to now support a new method of communication.

It is not a new method, it is reusing a well known web pattern between two entities that do not trust themselves deeply (cross-origin iframes or opener/openee)

> But for the MVP, a simple string is enough.

AIUI, it is not a simple string, it is a string + an origin + an event. This makes it very close to postMessage, albeit transfer.
If we think we will add postMessage communication level, I do not see why we should support the string API.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by youennf
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-screen-share/issues/166#issuecomment-1029796740 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Friday, 4 February 2022 09:25:56 UTC