W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > September 2011

Re: MediaStreamTrack disabling - effect on downstream MediaStreams?

From: ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ <tommyw@google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:46:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CALLKCfPoc+pkyaG00UqtqUNBaFCvQa=0RyfiPJCqVCyJ8EVcjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Soo-Hyun Choi <soohyun.choi@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
I am definitely in favor of the suggested behavior, the current just feels
clunky.

/Tommy

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 02:11, Soo-Hyun Choi <soohyun.choi@cl.cam.ac.uk>wrote:

> Harald,
>
>
> From the perspective of enabling temporary muting of a track, it seems like
>> it would be better if the text had said:
>>
>> When a track in a MediaStream<http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html#mediastream>
>>  parent is disabled, any MediaStreamTrack<http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html#mediastreamtrack>
>>  objects corresponding to the tracks in any MediaStream<http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html#mediastream>
>>  objects that were created from parent stop sending data, although their
>> "enabled" status does not change. If a disabled track in a MediaStream<http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html#mediastream>
>>  parent is re-enabled, data starts flowing on the downstream
>> MediaStreamTrack objects, as long as their *enabled* attribute has the
>> value "true".
>>
>>  What do other people think - what would it be best if the spec said?
>>
>>
>
> Agreed - I was reading this part of the spec yesterday, and had the exactly
> same thought like you. Your modified text looks much clearer.
>
>
> Soo-Hyun
>
>


-- 
Tommy Widenflycht, Senior Software Engineer
Google Sweden AB, Kungsbron 2, SE-11122 Stockholm, Sweden
Org. nr. 556656-6880
And yes, I have to include the above in every outgoing email according to EU
law.
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 17:47:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:25 UTC