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: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:44:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtkHxEK1qML54_3ugHBx1T9rd2cOKZqYmbiyTHg9D4qGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
wrote:

> OK, what we're struggling with then is that the mime type and params in
> rtp are represented as a single string while in sdp they are in different
> fields. In the api we should pick one representation only to expose both.
> I'm all about consistency. It sounds like some parts are best parsed out
> while the rest ends up in a params string. Is that what you are proposing?
>
This is almost right. In mime type rate is an optional parameter. In SDP it
is required. Kind and name are also required, but in mime type they are
part of an opaque string. So, having a structure that represents certain
fields parsed out will also insure that required fields are always present.
Representing these values as one string creates potential for some data to
be missing or not to be syntactically legal. Having a data structure that
can always be unambiguously converted to either mime type or SDP using a
few simple rules is better then having something that would need to be
parsed and reassembled.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2015 00:45:21 UTC

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