W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Spec question: Using settings dictionaries instead of MediaConstraints

From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 02:30:25 -0400
Message-ID: <4FE01C81.30005@jesup.org>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 6/18/2012 3:22 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> <fluffy@cisco.com <mailto:fluffy@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     This seems like good proposal, one comment on a small detail.
>
>     On Jun 15, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>
>      > SessionDescriptionOptions.IncludeAudio = true/false // forces
>     m=audio line to be included
>      > SessionDescriptionOptions.IncludeVideo = true/false // forces
>     m=video line to be included
>      > SessionDescriptionOptions.UseVoiceActivityDetection = true/false
>     // includes CN codecs if true
>
>     I think these three should be constraints, not settings because a
>     given browser may not support any of them.
>
>
> Practically speaking, what does that mean for applications?

I can conceive of a browser implementing audio but not video.  And a 
gateway or other stand-alone WebRTC box/functionality might include JS 
and these JS apis for ease of programming (and might be audio-only). 
(I'd try to avoid it in production, probably, but even that might not be 
needed with modern JS JIT speed so long as it didn't have to tear down 
and restart all the time.)

CN codecs: I dislike them anyways.  :-)  An implementation definitely 
could avoid including those.


-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 06:31:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:28 UTC