W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2015

Re: I have created a PR for RtpSender.getCapabilities and RtpReceiver.getCapabilities

From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:17:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxuoPTzQP+C0n0Bw+2yPMhBK1yiz7bBp2vCKyVME=gEJMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
wrote:

> 1.  Is there enough consensus from the WG to add this?  I'm in favor of it
> :).
>

I am for it as well.


> 2.  Should getCapabilities return a Promise?  I think it doesn't need to
> be, so I made it not return a Promise.
>

I do not think this needs to be a promise. In most cases these things are
known by implementation in advance and should not require a lot of time or
resources to compute.


> 3.  Should codec.name be a MIME type ("video/vp8") or just a name
> ("vp8")?  If a MIME type, should it be code.mimeType instead of codec.name?
> Or should we have both codec.name and codec.mimeType.   I've made it
> codec.name with MIME type here, which matches ORTC.  But I'm currently
> thinking I'd prefer codec.name with a name instead.  I'd also be happy
> with having both codec.name and codec.mimeType.
>
>
I would think that having separate codec.name and codec.mimeType would be
the best option. Based on
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml there are
cases when there is a mismatch between the name and the mime type,
such as "vnd.vivo"
and "video/vnd-vivo". I hope no will ever need any of those codecs, but
theoretically it is possible.
_____________
Roman Shpount
Received on Friday, 17 July 2015 23:18:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:45 UTC