- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 11:12:02 +0100
- To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of the WebRTC WG meeting held last week (Jan 20), based on
notes provided by Youenn and Guido, are available at:
https://www.w3.org/2026/01/20-webrtc-minutes.html
and copied as text below.
Dom
WebRTC January 2026 meeting
[2]Agenda.
[2] https://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/wiki/January_20_2026
Attendees
Present
-
Regrets
-
Chair
Guido, Jan-Ivar, Youenn
Scribe
scribe
Contents
1. [3]PEPC for camera & microphone
1. [4]Overview of PEPC for Camera and Microphone
2. [5]Analysis of the Geolocation Element API Shape
3. [6]Usermedia elements
4. [7]Future Collaboration and Roadmap
2. [8]RTC prefix
3. [9]dropped frame counter for MSTP
4. [10]Summary of resolutions
Meeting minutes
Slideset: [11]https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/
1PtncyEK9WFPQlhtS2iOlx4vIbXqhEOMp3MQCfXZC5OQ/ ([12]archived PDF
copy)
[11]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PtncyEK9WFPQlhtS2iOlx4vIbXqhEOMp3MQCfXZC5OQ/
PEPC for camera & microphone
Overview of PEPC for Camera and Microphone
[13][Slide 10]
[13]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PtncyEK9WFPQlhtS2iOlx4vIbXqhEOMp3MQCfXZC5OQ/#10
[14][Slide 11]
[14]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PtncyEK9WFPQlhtS2iOlx4vIbXqhEOMp3MQCfXZC5OQ/#11
[Jan-Ivar Bruaroey provided an overview of PEPC (Page Embedded
Permission Control), which proposes a new user experience (UX)
for camera and microphone access. The working group had
previously resolved to use Media Capture Streams or its
extension to anchor discussions on PEPC integration, requiring
decisions on the API shape and content. This overview aimed to
present a vision for using camera and microphone through PEPC,
starting with an analysis of the geolocation API.]
[The existing PEPC implementation for WebRTC and
camera/microphone access requires multiple button pushes (up to
three) to activate the camera, which Jan-Ivar Bruaroey
suggested makes the process less user-friendly than the current
standard two-click process. The PEPC button is often shown as a
website prompt rather than being properly embedded in the page
layout, causing an extra layer of user interaction. A mock-up
was presented showing how a PEPC button could be embedded
directly into the page layout, potentially replacing an
existing button.]
Analysis of the Geolocation Element API Shape
[15][Slide 12]
[15]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PtncyEK9WFPQlhtS2iOlx4vIbXqhEOMp3MQCfXZC5OQ/#12
[The geolocation element, shipped in Chrome 144, provides a
basic "Use location" button that initiates resource
acquisition, functioning as a page-embedded powerful feature
control button. The user initiates the resource acquisition by
clicking the button, which fires an event that returns
information such as latitude, longitude, and accuracy upon
success. Mike West confirmed that clicking the button gives the
user a choice to grant location access temporarily or
persistently, with an option to request continuous access using
a 'watch' attribute.]
[16][Slide 13]
[16]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PtncyEK9WFPQlhtS2iOlx4vIbXqhEOMp3MQCfXZC5OQ/#13
[Interaction between Legacy and PEPC Geolocation APIs: The
legacy Geolocation API's `getCurrentPosition` method and the
new PEPC geolocation element were compared, demonstrating that
once permission is granted via PEPC, the page gains access
through the legacy API for the duration of the session.
However, if a user chooses "allow this time only," future
visits result in "prompt fatigue," which PEPC aims to improve.
The "allow always" option allows the website to decide when to
turn on the feature in the future, which is considered a
privacy trade-off.]
[17][Slide 14]
[17]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PtncyEK9WFPQlhtS2iOlx4vIbXqhEOMp3MQCfXZC5OQ/#14
[Proposal for "Allow on Button Push" Persistence: A new
persistence level, "Allow on button push," was proposed as a
middle ground that simplifies feature usage by the user without
permanent privacy compromise. With this option, the user
receives a granted permission only until the tab is closed, but
on future visits, they will not be prompted as long as they use
the PEPC button first. This persistence level is not currently
exposed via the Permissions API, meaning the web page cannot
tell ahead of time what will happen when the button is pushed.]
[18][Slide 15]
[18]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PtncyEK9WFPQlhtS2iOlx4vIbXqhEOMp3MQCfXZC5OQ/#15
[19][Slide 16]
[19]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PtncyEK9WFPQlhtS2iOlx4vIbXqhEOMp3MQCfXZC5OQ/#16
[Discussion on UX and Persistence of PEPC Buttons: There was a
discussion about the wording of permission choices, with
Jan-Ivar Bruaroey noting that the exact phrasing ("Allow on
button push," "Allow while visiting the site") is a UX question
for individual browsers, and they represent concepts rather
than required terminology. Tim Panton raised a concern that if
a user chooses "allow on button push," they need to be able to
recognize the PEPC button on future visits, even with website
style changes. Mike West responded that core elements of the
button, like the icon and text, are largely browser-controlled
to ensure legibility and comprehensibility regardless of the
surrounding presentation.]
Usermedia elements
[20][Slide 17]
[20]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PtncyEK9WFPQlhtS2iOlx4vIbXqhEOMp3MQCfXZC5OQ/#17
[Proposed Microphone Element API Shape: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey
proposed a simple HTML microphone element following the
geolocation model, intended to be a toggle button that stays on
the page. When clicked, it would call `getUserMedia` with set
constraints and fire a `stream` event upon user allowance. The
proposal suggested that the browser would fire a source-level
mute/unmute event on the single audio track when the button is
toggled off and on, though Youenn Fablet argued for
source-level muting to prevent conflicts with cloned tracks.]
[21][Slide 18]
[21]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PtncyEK9WFPQlhtS2iOlx4vIbXqhEOMp3MQCfXZC5OQ/#18
[Proposed Camera Element and Muting Strategy: A similar
proposal was made for a camera element with a "Turn on camera"
toggle button and the ability to set video constraints. The
discussion reiterated that if the button only mutes a single
track, as proposed, it allows advanced applications to clone
the track for self-view (e.g., a "comb check") while simple
applications benefit from default behavior. It was acknowledged
that web developers may choose to remove the built-in button if
it is too restrictive, necessitating a design that encourages
developers to keep the button visible.]
[22][Slide 19]
[22]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PtncyEK9WFPQlhtS2iOlx4vIbXqhEOMp3MQCfXZC5OQ/#19
[UserMedia Element and Constraints Discussion: A third element,
`usermedia`, was proposed for cases where a website might want
to ask for both microphone and camera permissions
simultaneously. Youenn Fablet questioned the need for this
element in a minimum viable product (MVP), citing concerns
about the complexity and the difficulty in designing an
appropriate icon that conveys both capabilities. Jan-Ivar
Bruaroey agreed that `usermedia` was the "least interesting
button" but noted that the Chrome team had expressed interest
in it because it allows for single-prompt acquisition of both
capabilities, reducing friction.]
[23][Slide 20]
[23]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PtncyEK9WFPQlhtS2iOlx4vIbXqhEOMp3MQCfXZC5OQ/#20
[24][Slide 21]
[24]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PtncyEK9WFPQlhtS2iOlx4vIbXqhEOMp3MQCfXZC5OQ/#21
[User Media Element and Constraints Discussion: A third
element, `user-media`, was proposed for cases where a website
might want to ask for both microphone and camera permissions
simultaneously. Youenn Fablet questioned the need for this
element in a minimum viable product (MVP), citing concerns
about the complexity and the difficulty in designing an
appropriate icon that conveys both capabilities. Jan-Ivar
Bruaroey agreed that `user-media` was the "least interesting
button" but noted that the Chrome team had expressed interest
in it because it allows for single-prompt acquisition of both
capabilities, reducing friction.]
Future Collaboration and Roadmap
[The speaker announced plans for an editor's meeting during the
current week to meet with the PEPC team to get a status update
and agree on a minimum feature set for a Version 1 and a future
roadmap. They also plan to discuss developer feedback from the
origin trial, which was used by several major video
conferencing applications, and decide on plans for periodic
follow-up meetings. Jan-Ivar Bruaroey stressed the importance
of these meetings being public and having minutes.]
[Review of PEPC Button Details and API Shape: A meeting
scheduled for Thursday will be used to sort out details
regarding the PEPC (permissions, elements, presentation,
storage, and identity) discussion points. The main questions
revolve around the mute/unmute functionality, the API shape for
the user media element (and whether it is an MVP), styling, and
constraints. Mike West confirmed that the listed topics cover
the main points and that they are open to collaboration, though
consensus on all points is not guaranteed.]
[Discussion on PEPC Button Longevity and Geolocation: youenn
fablet raised a question about the expected lifespan of the
PEPC button for geolocation, noting that the design being
pushed for microphone and camera permissions suggests a long
duration. Mike West indicated that different capability
controls can reasonably have different expected developer paths
and that they are open to feedback on the decisions made for
the geolocation version shipping in 144. The current design
intent is for the geolocation button to remain on the page to
provide control, for example, over location attachment to a
search.]
[Constraining APIs to Promote Better Developer Patterns: Mike
West noted that making durable changes to the access level
associated with a button would be difficult as long as the API
exists. They suggested a collaborative effort to find good
patterns for developers and then collaborate on ways to
constrain the APIs to help developers find those agreed-upon
patterns. The PEPC discussions for the day concluded, and Mike
West excused themself from the remainder of the meeting.]
Need further discussion on MVP scope and long term goal
RESOLUTION: Continue camera/microphone button design
discussions between WebRTC WG and PEPC, open to all WG members,
slot will be webrtc editor’s meeting.
[25]RTC prefix
[25] https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-encoded-transform/pull/291
RESOLUTION: Move on with a PR for adding RTC prefix.
[26]dropped frame counter for MSTP
[26] https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-transform/issues/122
RESOLUTION: Consensus on ready for PR. Might need further
technical discussion/design on whether to allow the stat to
identify when frames were dropped (how many frames are dropped
between two video frames exposed).
Summary of resolutions
1. [27]Continue camera/microphone button design discussions
between WebRTC WG and PEPC, open to all WG members, slot
will be webrtc editor’s meeting.
2. [28]Move on with a PR for adding RTC prefix.
3. [29]Consensus on ready for PR. Might need further technical
discussion/design on whether to allow the stat to identify
when frames were dropped (how many frames are dropped
between two video frames exposed).
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2026 10:12:04 UTC