- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:51:32 -0400
- To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <51F14984.9050903@bbs.darktech.org>
On 25/07/2013 11:18 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:02 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org > <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> wrote: > > Alex and Martin, > > I'd like to bring your attention to > https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=257104. This > issue was filed before initiating a discussion on the list. > > It was the browser vendor who (rightfully so) suggested that > the WebRTC specification needs to be changed in order for them to > make the necessary changes in Chrome. > > > Uh, it wasn't "the browser vendor", it was one person who works on > Chromium > and as I read his message, he doesn't say that they want to make the > changes > but merely that: > > "Expanding the NavigatorUserMediaErrorName enums probably merits > discussion in > W3C or WebRTC lists and is therefore not suitable for tracking in a > single bug." > > Which seems rather more noncommittal. My point was that someone from a Chrome bug report told me that this discussion belongs on the W3C list and someone from the W3C list told me that this discussion belongs in a Chrome bug report. I think there is a misunderstanding of the issue. I am asking to differentiate between: * Access denied by the user (whether directly or by way of a saved preference) * Access denied by the browser The former is recoverable. The latter is fatal (likely a programming bug). I am *not* asking to differentiate between a user denying access directly versus denying access by way of a saved preference. Gili
Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 15:52:22 UTC