W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > February 2013

Re: nitpicking the code and examples

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:30:49 +0100
Message-ID: <511400E9.3080307@alvestrand.no>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 02/07/2013 04:24 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 6 February 2013 21:54, Stefan Hakansson LK
> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>> The legacy case is somewhat sticky: I don't know what
>>> (MediaStreamTrack) identifiers are attached to those streams.  What is
>>> most interesting is the case where msid attributes arrive after the
>>> first packets, which is possible...maybe.
>> I think the browser could not do anything sensible until it gets the answer.
>> If it has msid data in it, then it can assemble the MediaStream(s)
>> accordingly. If there is no msid info it would have to do the default thing
>> (which I think currently is to create one MediaStream object with tracks for
>> all RTP streams in it).
> This is, of course, the exact path we followed to conclude that we
> needed dummy streams.  I'll try to find some time to pick derf's brain
> on what his ideas are here.  The only things I could come up with are
> a little stinky, but no doubt he has something far better than
> anything I could come up with.
>
Wasn't the track I heard followed in Lyon; the track I heard followed in 
Lyon involved making sure there was a video m= line with adequate 
candidates in the answer from Bob's JS that is sent before Bob's JS 
knows that Bob is giving permission to use his camera.

I may have missed some tracks.
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 19:31:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:32 UTC