- From: James Salsman <jsalsman@corp.webtv.net>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 21:02:47 -0800
- To: Peter Flynn <pflynn@imbolc.ucc.ie>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
Peter, Thanks for your message: >... File uploads were proposed ... for uploading files of > static data ... of pre-known size, not for interactive > streaming.... I'm not proposing streaming at all; I think using HTTP for real-time transactions is a Bad Idea. That is why the draft specifically suggests using RTP instead for real-time needs. Activating streaming from a microphone with an arbitrary page of HTML is a serious security headache, probably enough to be illegal in California. The proposal is for buffering before the upload, just as <input type=text> buffers your keystrokes before uploading when you submit the form. The MAXLENGTH attribute and the DEVICE-MAXLENGTH Pragma HTTP header are proposed to negotiate buffer length, in section 2 of the draft. > I think the idea is fine, but I'd like to see input from > more people in the audio/video field. I've recieved very positive comments from a gentleman at Lucent about the use of 'audio/L16;rate=11025' instead of 'audio/basic' -- I'll forward all the private comments I receive and an updated draft (if any) to the W3C lists www-talk, www-html, and www-multimedia after the vote on HTML 4.0. (As you could probably tell by the embargoed status, the proposal doesn't take effect until after the HTML 4.0 draft is approved.) >... can I send again my long message about the WebTV > additional elements that I put into HTML Pro? Absolutly; please do. The problems with our on-line documentation are understood and being worked on, and any help would be great. Sincere regards, -- :James Salsman, WebTV Networks ::<jsalsman@corp.webtv.net> 650-614-8465
Received on Saturday, 15 November 1997 00:03:14 UTC