Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Mon, 06 August 2012 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C215421F855F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fyyIgVJhO4Oc for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1393721F855D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-173-49-141-60.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([173.49.141.60] helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1SyUlr-0009ZM-IV for rtcweb@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 16:23:27 -0500
Message-ID: <50203564.8070509@jesup.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:21:40 -0400
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <53223349-A31F-4381-899F-82E29B0A0B6C@cisco.com> <CACHLvecT1AgJRo=xM5AH-fGZn+iYrtHqWk7Eym8QJn9U7YGcsg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPk5xQv_ZNqo66LfApshWtRrvXuBMscnp3+kY_GMiibgD1BCqw@mail.gmail.com> <AEF5DA45-0307-4170-A8B4-BAE6B25248C8@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-093zyfumK_z5dGhr8msNatfBABk6wD=g80GH2LG4055Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAPk5xQsxfNQhdVQUnhfXY2US-tsixsv0h+A6y-26UK7px4PpKw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPk5xQsxfNQhdVQUnhfXY2US-tsixsv0h+A6y-26UK7px4PpKw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:23:29 -0000

On 8/6/2012 4:49 PM, Rohit Puri wrote:
> If from the media pipeline perspective, it were possible to have an
> architecture like for example, gstreamer, wherein there is a concept of
> a processing chain for media and it is possible for the client developer
> to provide proprietary processing blocks that suit the use case for
> their application better than the default implementation, that would be
> great.

See the MediaStream Processing API proposal:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/audio/raw-file/tip/streams/StreamProcessing.html

Note that this was partly an alternative to the Web Audio API, which has 
been adopted, and they plan to integrate some aspects of MediaStream 
Processing into Web Audio, but MediaStream Processing is still relevant, 
especially for video (and will be more so once JS workers can access WebGL).

-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org