On 6/17/21 4:22 AM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote: > > Embedding the specific UA controls in the browser (proposal A and B) > is a layering violation. > > @Harald (I think you mean B?) I mean A and B. Attempting to limit communication between two cooperating entities to a set of standard actions is a layering violation. (The MediaSession proposal is at the same layer as proposal A and B, so incorporating these ideas into a revised version of MediaSession would not be a layer violation.) > In any case, the explainer > <https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-screen-share/blob/gh-pages/explainer.md#what-is-it-whats-it-for> > seems quite clear that the primary use case of getDisplayMedia is > presentations in video conferences. That's why browsers push captured > windows to the front > <https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-screen-share/issues/138>, among > other things. I'm not taking a position on Youenn's proposal, only > noting that having user agents involved at a high level here does not > seem out of bounds: Two sites are involved, and user agents stepping > in to mediate to protect users seems fine and appropriate to me, if > they wish to do that. Two sites are involved. These two sites may be cooperating, competing, or have any other relationship. In the case of deeply cooperating sites, the UA's business is to get out of the way and let them cooperate. UA controls are appropriate only for the case where both sites want to conform to some common set of mediation mechanisms (such as MediaSession) - the IETF tried that with the CLUE WG (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/clue/about/) - it failed, while the effort that put tools in the hands of the user to build the systems they needed (RTCWEB) succeeded.
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2021 13:10:05 UTC