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

Re: Spec question: Using settings dictionaries instead of MediaConstraints

From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:57:38 +0200
Message-ID: <4FE07742.5080908@ericsson.com>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 06/19/2012 08:30 AM, Randell Jesup wrote:
> 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.

Many codecs have built in CN modes. I guess for those it is more a 
question of being able to switch off the VAD.

>
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 12:58:13 UTC

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