- From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 20:00:38 +0000
- To: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- CC: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
> From: Adam Bergkvist [mailto:adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com] > > On 2012-12-17 19:32, Travis Leithead wrote: > >> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no] > >> > >> Changing subject line again.... > >> > >> I think the difference in the two is not so much how it is generated, > >> but what its uniqueness guarantee is. > >> > >> I think the "id" is guaranteed to be unique across all tracks in some > >> context (in a PC? In an UA? in a MediaStream? For tracks, that > >> depends on what we decide happens to the "id" when a track is created > >> from another track - I'd prefer a new "id", which lets them be UA-wide > unique). > >> > >> The "label" is intended to be human readable, and is not guaranteed > >> to be unique in any context. > >> > >> My take. > > > > How much more informative will the label be than the proposed > "sourceType" attribute? > > My understanding is that all cameras of the same media type will have the > same sourceType, but label (on track) can, e.g., be used to distinguish > between cameras of different brands (e.g. "Logitech USB Cam 0"). What if the UA doesn't wish to report brand information (for example, to limit fingerprinting issues)? Since there will also be a unique "sourceId" for uniquely identifying the source, then my point is that the "label" wouldn't really add anything (unless it's needed for something in Peer Connection which I'm not aware of...)
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2012 20:01:35 UTC