- From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:06:43 -0500
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
WARNING: I noticed this message seemed to have come in at an odd time, and I looked at the headers. It appears that this message sat in the w3 servers for over a day (closer to two!) before moving to a different w3 server: Received: from www-data by jessica.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <alexn74@gmail.com>) id 1RPgmO-0000x0-T7 for public-webrtc@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 20:35:52 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <alexn74@gmail.com>) id 1ROiin-00040C-CL for public-webrtc@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 04:28:09 +0000 Delivery before that and after that was timely. So, word of warning, messages may be hanging with no notice! ... Subject: Re: Proposal: Media streams, media stream tracks and channels ... On 11/10/2011 11:27 PM, Alex wrote: > Yeh, I understand that. Just wanted to point out that semantic of > identifiers you've chosen intersect with what we deal in other standards > (MPEG container for instance) and real life analogues. So hierarchy of > Stream, Track and Channel is unclear without reading the doc (which is a > good thing sometimes). Personally I would prefer > Stream->Substream->SubstreamChannel hierarchy or similar. For instance > MPEG-4 container has a notion of tracks (trak block). In audio world > tracks have a default meaning as well. [SNIP] -- Randell Jesup randell-ietf@jesup.org
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 16:08:02 UTC