W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2011

[whatwg] Peer-to-peer communication, video conferencing, <device>, and related topics

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:02:49 +0100
Message-ID: <4D836609.9020809@lachy.id.au>
On 2011-03-18 05:45, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Jonathan Dixon wrote:
>> Further, it could be useful to provide a way to query the video source
>> as to whether the camera is oriented relative to the screen (if the
>> underlying system knows; consider a phone device with both a main camera
>> and self-view camera). This is needed to drive the decision on whether
>> to do this horizontal flip or not. In fact, such an application may want
>> to somehow indicate a preference for the self-view camera when multiple
>> cameras are present in the selection list. c.f. a movie-making app which
>> would prefer the outward facing camera.
>
> Interesting.
>
> In getUserMedia() the input is extensible; we could definitely add
> "prefer-user-view" or "prefer-environment-view" flags to the method (with
> better names, hopefully, but consider that 'rear' and 'front' are
> misleading terms -- the front camera on a DSLR faces outward from the
> user, the front camera on a mobile phone faces toward the user). The user
> still has to OK the use of the device, though, so maybe it should just be
> left up to the user to pick the camera? They'll need to be able to switch
> it on the fly, too, which again argues to make this a UA feature.

We could just add flags to the options string like this:

"video;view=user, audio" or "video;view=environment, audio"

It's worth pointing out that The HTML Media Capture draft from the DAP 
WG uses the terms "camera" and "camcorder" for this purpose, but I find 
these terms to be very ambiguous and inappropriate, and so we should not 
use them here.

http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/

> Similarly for exposing the kind of stream: we could add to GeneratedStream
> an attribute that reports this kind of thing. What is the most useful way
> of exposing this information?

I'm not entirely clear about what the use cases are for knowing if the 
camera is either user-view or environment-view.  It seems the more 
useful information to know is the orientation of the camera.  If the 
user switches cameras, that could also be handled by firing orientation 
events.

> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> There are some use cases for which it would be useful to know the
>> precise orientation of the camera, such as augmented reality
>> applications.  The camera orientation may be independent of the device's
>> orientation, and so the existing device orientation API may not be
>> sufficient.
>
> It seems like the best way to extend this would be to have the Device
> Orientation API apply to GeneratedStream objects, either by just having
> the events also fire on GeneratedStream objects, or by having the API be
> based on a pull model rather than a push model and exposing an object on
> GeneratedStream objects as well as Window objects.

This could work.  But it would make more sense if there were an object 
representing the device itself, as in Rich's proposal, and for the 
events to be fired on that object instead of the stream.

> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>
>> There is a plan of allowing direct assigning to IDL attributes besides
>> creating URLs.
>>
>> I.e. being able to do:
>>
>>   audio.src = blob
>>
>> (The src content attribute would then be something like "about:objecturl".)
>>
>> I am not sure if that API should work differently from creating URLs and
>> assigning those, but we could consider it.
>
> Could you elaborate on this plan?

This is basically what Philip and I were discussing in the other thread 
yesterday, where we avoid the unnecessary overhead of creating a magic 
URL, and instead just assign the object directly to the src property. 
This lets the implementation handle all the magic transparently in the 
background, without bothering to expose a URLs string to the author.

This is what we had implemented in our experimental implementation of 
the <device> element, and now getUserMedia.

i.e.

<video></video>
<script>
var v = document.querySelector("video");
navigator.getUserMedia("video", function(stream) {
   v.src = stream;
   v.play();
});
</script>

The getter for v.src then returns "about:streamurl".

My understanding is that we don't really want to have to implement the 
create/revokeObjectURL() methods for this.

> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> This is just a thought. Instead of acquiring a Stream object
>> asynchronously there always is one available showing transparent black
>> or some such. E.g. navigator.cameraStream. It also inherits from
>> EventTarget. Then on the Stream object you have methods to request
>> camera access which triggers some asynchronous UI. Once granted an
>> appropriately named event is dispatched on Stream indicating you now
>> have access to an actual stream. When the user decides it is enough and
>> turns of the camera (or something else happens) some other appropriately
>> named event is dispatched on Stream again turning it transparent black
> again.
>
> This is a very interesting idea.

This suggests that there would be a separate property available for the 
microphone, and any other input device.  This differs from the existing 
spec, which allowed a single stream to represent both audio and video.

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> The API includes both readystatechange event, as well as independent
>> events for play, paused and ended.  This redundancy is unnecessary. This
>> is also inconsistent with the design of the HTMLMediaElement API, which
>> does not include a readystatechange event in favour on separate events
>> only.
>
> I've dropped readystatechange.
>
> I expect to drop play and pause events if we move to the model described
> above that pauses and resumes audio and video separately.

It may still be useful to have events for this, if the event object had 
a property that indicated which type of stream it applied to, or if 
there were separate objects for both the audio and video streams.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Friday, 18 March 2011 07:02:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:31 UTC