- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:53:49 +0000
- To: Singh Varun <varun.singh@aalto.fi>
- CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 27/11/14 13:48, Singh Varun wrote: > Hi, > > The fact it is in the RTP header and the latest version of RTP-usage > says MUST implement. I suppose the browser should be able to rotate it > without using CSS rotations? Sure, the browser would be able to do that. My point is I don't remember us discussing *what* the browser should do. And what happens if the app also applies an orientation using CSS? There could be a conflict, what would take precedence? This must be specced out IMO. > > WebRTC endpoints that send or receive video MUST implement the > coordination of video orientation (CVO) RTP header extension as > described in Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-video <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-21#ref-I-D.ietf-rtcweb-video>]. Thanks, I had missed that. > > > > >> On 27 Nov 2014, at 14:37, Stefan Håkansson LK >> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com >> <mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> just noted in [1] that a video orientation RTP header extension seem to >> be assumed. >> >> Has it ever been discussed what that would mean in the application >> space? I.e. should it transfer to a track property, should it rotate the >> view shown by the video element automatically (and in that case: how >> would that interact with CSS rotations), or something else? >> >> Sorry if I missed the discussion, but I don't recollect we talked about >> this. >> >> Stefan >> >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2014Nov/0078.html >> >
Received on Thursday, 27 November 2014 12:54:15 UTC