Re: Do we need capabilities?

On 01/24/2012 01:26 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 01/24/2012 10:18 AM, Neil Stratford wrote:
>> On 24/01/2012 03:04, Anant Narayanan wrote:
>>> (Starting as a separate thread, to document objections to
>>> getCapabilities)
>>
>>> 1. I think we can all agree that exposing capabilities without user
>>> consent of any form is not what we really want. If the current
>>> getCapabilities() is able to be invoked by any web page without any
>>> indication to the user, it is a massive privacy invasion. Ad services
>>> will then be able to add more bits of reliable information in order
>>> to personally identify visitors (they already know too much!).
>>
>> I agree, getCapabilities() does require user approval, which could
>> also be used to pre-approve access for a later getUserMeida() request.
> Hmm..... perhaps this is a place where we can recast the language of
> discourse....
>
> if getCapabilities() did what getUserMedia() does now, and takes
> parameters saying what kind of stuff it wants (audio&  video), and the
> user dialog gives the user the chance to select which units it wishes to
> expose to this application, then getUserMedia() can select freely from
> the devices to which it has been permitted access, and can explore the
> properties of devices without disturbing the user further....?

What would be the difference to simply calling getUserMedia() as it's 
specified today and then remove all the tracks you don't need?

/Adam