19:43:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #mediacap
19:43:01 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/09-mediacap-irc
19:43:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 175
19:43:05 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 
19:43:05 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
19:43:06 <trackbot> Meeting: Media Capture Task Force Teleconference
19:43:06 <trackbot> Date: 09 May 2012
19:44:10 <dom> RRSAgent, make log public
19:46:16 <dom> Zakim, this will be MCAP
19:46:16 <Zakim> ok, dom; I see UW_MdCap()4:00PM scheduled to start in 14 minutes
19:49:48 <stefanh> stefanh has joined #mediacap
19:51:01 <Zakim> UW_MdCap()4:00PM has now started
19:51:08 <Zakim> +Josh_Soref
19:53:11 <anant_> anant_ has joined #mediacap
19:54:14 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
19:54:18 <burn> burn has joined #mediacap
19:54:52 <fjh> fjh has joined #mediacap
19:54:54 <anant_> Zakim: Mozilla is anant
19:55:50 <Zakim> +Dan_Burnett
19:56:10 <burn> zakim, I am Dan_Burnett
19:56:10 <Zakim> ok, burn, I now associate you with Dan_Burnett
19:56:18 <anant> anant has joined #mediacap
19:57:26 <adambe> adambe has joined #mediacap
19:58:15 <Zakim> +adambe
19:59:22 <Zakim> +Stefan_Hakansson
19:59:35 <Zakim> +bryan
19:59:46 <burn> zakim, nick stefanh is Stefan_Hakansson
19:59:46 <Zakim> ok, burn, I now associate stefanh with Stefan_Hakansson
19:59:59 <Zakim> +Jim_Barnett
19:59:59 <dom> Zakim, code?
19:59:59 <Cathy> Cathy has joined #mediacap
20:00:00 <Zakim> the conference code is 6227 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), dom
20:00:17 <Zakim> +??P15
20:00:20 <dom> Zakim, ??P15 is me
20:00:20 <Zakim> +dom; got it
20:00:46 <Josh_Soref> Scribe: Josh_Soref 
20:00:49 <burn> zakim, who is noisy?
20:01:03 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, who is making noise?
20:01:04 <Zakim> burn, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Josh_Soref (90%)
20:01:12 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, mute me
20:01:12 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should now be muted
20:01:14 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Josh_Soref (30%)
20:01:50 <dom> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012May/0005.html
20:01:53 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
20:01:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/09-mediacap-minutes.html Josh_Soref
20:02:06 <Zakim> +??P0
20:02:11 <fjh> zakim, ??P0 is me
20:02:11 <Zakim> +fjh; got it
20:02:37 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
20:02:48 <Zakim> +Cathy
20:02:53 <Josh_Soref> Chair: Stefan_Hakansson, Harald_Alvestrand
20:03:06 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
20:03:23 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, anant has entered [Mozilla]
20:03:23 <Zakim> +anant; got it
20:03:24 <derf> Zakim: [Mozilla] contains derf
20:03:34 <derf> Zakim, [Mozilla] contains derf
20:03:34 <Zakim> +derf; got it
20:03:36 <Zakim> +[Mozilla.a]
20:03:51 <anant> Zakim: [Mozilla.a] contains anant
20:03:56 <dom> Zakim, who is on the call?
20:03:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see Josh_Soref (muted), Dan_Burnett, adambe, Stefan_Hakansson, bryan, Jim_Barnett, dom, fjh, Cathy, [Mozilla], [Mozilla.a]
20:03:58 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has derf
20:04:14 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Scribe Selection
20:04:18 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: Josh_Soref, will you scribe?
20:04:20 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: yes
20:04:31 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Agenda Adjustments
20:04:34 <bryan_> bryan_ has joined #mediacap
20:04:43 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: I'd like to add a slot for burn to talk about Constraints
20:04:52 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Minutes Approval
20:05:11 <Josh_Soref> burn: I sent a minor correction to Josh_Soref just now
20:05:19 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: I'll update that and send out new minutes
20:05:25 <anant> Zakim, [Mozilla.a] contains anant
20:05:25 <Zakim> +anant; got it
20:05:28 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: is it ok to approve the minutes with that correction?
20:05:46 <Josh_Soref> RESOLUTION: Minutes from 24 April are approved with burn's correction
20:05:59 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: there were 2 actions from the minutes
20:06:17 <Josh_Soref> ... burn to write a proposal
20:06:24 <Josh_Soref> ... and myself to contact travis
20:06:27 <Josh_Soref> ... i haven't done that yet
20:06:42 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Audio/Video Mandatory Syntax Proposal
20:06:51 <Josh_Soref> burn: i sent an email, about an hour ago
20:06:53 <Josh_Soref> ... to the list
20:07:04 <Josh_Soref> ... I promised to provide an email with some of the syntax alternatives
20:07:13 <Josh_Soref> ... these two, I think represent as much of the consensus
20:07:17 <Josh_Soref> ... and interest as I heard
20:07:23 <Josh_Soref> ... there were minor variations on these
20:07:32 <Josh_Soref> ... I think overall, if we could choose one of the three approaches
20:07:38 <Josh_Soref> ... the original, alternative 1, and alternative 2
20:07:43 <Josh_Soref> ... but it'll be clear what we're discussing
20:07:54 <Josh_Soref> ... the original is copied directly out of the constraints proposal
20:08:31 <dom> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012May/0011.html Syntax options for constraints structure Dan Burnett
20:08:48 <Josh_Soref> [ Alternative 1 ]
20:09:07 <Josh_Soref> burn: here, i restructured it
20:09:16 <Josh_Soref> ... instead of mandatory and optional being the top-level keys
20:09:22 <Josh_Soref> ... the top level are video and audio
20:09:30 <Josh_Soref> ... with mandatory/optional underneath them
20:09:37 <Josh_Soref> ... or for the value of the video key to be "true"
20:09:55 <Josh_Soref> ... I had to come up with a value of "optional"
20:10:03 <Josh_Soref> q+ to note that "optional" would need to be a string
20:10:11 <Josh_Soref> ... video is a struture
20:10:20 <Josh_Soref> ... with mandatory and optional parameters
20:10:26 <anant> q+
20:10:27 <Josh_Soref> ... mandatory is an object (dictionary)
20:10:34 <Josh_Soref> ... and optional is still a list (array)
20:10:39 <Josh_Soref> ... ordered
20:10:45 <Josh_Soref> ... the ones that come first have a higher priority
20:10:56 <Josh_Soref> [ Example 2]
20:10:59 <Josh_Soref> s/]/ ]/
20:11:13 <Josh_Soref> burn: this uses the syntax shortcut for optional
20:11:17 <Josh_Soref> [ Example 3 ]
20:11:27 <Josh_Soref> burn: this uses the syntax shortcut for mandatory
20:11:29 <Josh_Soref> ack Josh_Soref 
20:11:31 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to note that "optional" would need to be a string
20:11:35 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, mute me
20:11:35 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should now be muted
20:11:48 <Josh_Soref> anant: Josh_Soref noted that optional would need to be a string
20:12:04 <Josh_Soref> ... we could make them be boolean or dictionary
20:12:22 <Josh_Soref> ... and for optional you could not specify the property
20:12:26 <Josh_Soref> burn: that wouldn't be the same
20:12:38 <Josh_Soref> ... {audio:optional} means, I'm ok with audio, but i don't need it
20:12:49 <Josh_Soref> ... if you say {}, audio means you don't want audio
20:12:57 <Josh_Soref> anant: we'll have to think about this a bit more
20:13:03 <Josh_Soref> ... from an implementation perspective
20:13:09 <Josh_Soref> ... they could be Boolean, String, or Dictionary
20:13:15 <Josh_Soref> ... we might just have String or Dictionary
20:13:19 <Josh_Soref> ... that's just a minor detail
20:13:22 <bryan> bryan has joined #mediacap
20:13:27 <Josh_Soref> ... overall, it looks reasonable
20:13:36 <bryan> present+ Bryan_Sullivan
20:13:44 <Josh_Soref> adambe: perhaps, instead of making all three stirngs
20:13:49 <Josh_Soref> ... could we use an enumeration type?
20:13:57 <Josh_Soref> q+ to note that "enum" is being deprecated
20:14:24 <Josh_Soref> burn: we could use {video:{mandatatory:{}}
20:14:30 <Josh_Soref> s/}/}}/
20:14:48 <Josh_Soref> ... Dict + Enum
20:14:53 <Josh_Soref> ack Josh_Soref 
20:14:54 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to note that "enum" is being deprecated
20:15:00 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, mute me
20:15:00 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should now be muted
20:15:07 <Josh_Soref> anant: we're trying to move away from enums
20:15:13 <Josh_Soref> ... enums become messy things
20:15:21 <Josh_Soref> ... navigator.media.ALLOW...
20:15:24 <anant> q-
20:15:25 <Josh_Soref> ... so strings are better
20:15:36 <Josh_Soref> ... we're moving away from them for XX
20:15:48 <Josh_Soref> burn: any other questions about alternative 1?
20:15:51 <Josh_Soref> [ None ]
20:15:54 <stefanh> s/XX/PeerConnection/
20:16:11 <Josh_Soref> [ Alternative 2 ]
20:16:15 <Josh_Soref> burn: same 3 examples
20:16:36 <Josh_Soref> ... video and audio have been added to the dictionary
20:16:40 <anant> Josh_Soref: enums are too verbose and require a prefix everytime (like navigator.media) that adds unnecessary characters
20:17:12 <Josh_Soref> burn: we could still do...
20:17:29 <Josh_Soref> ... the key difference is that we have {mandatory:{}, optional:{}} at the top
20:17:40 <Josh_Soref> ... In the second example of alternative 2, we could modify optional:
20:17:49 <Josh_Soref> ... to be an optional value for audio/video as in alternative 1
20:17:59 <dom> (enum is actually a construct in WebIDL to build list of acceptable strings)
20:18:07 <Josh_Soref> q?
20:18:13 <Josh_Soref> adambe: a key difference here
20:18:29 <Josh_Soref> ... is that we don't have to prefix the constraints w/ video/audio in Alternative 1
20:18:35 <Josh_Soref> ... but they're necessary in Alternative 2
20:18:46 <Josh_Soref> ... in A2E1
20:19:01 <Josh_Soref> ... is video mandatory in this example, because there's a mandatory Video named constraint
20:19:12 <Josh_Soref> in Example 1
20:19:13 <Josh_Soref> ...
20:19:18 <Josh_Soref> s/in/... in/
20:19:21 <Josh_Soref> burn: it isn't needed
20:19:26 <Josh_Soref> ... if you look at the algorithm
20:19:38 <Josh_Soref> ... it walks through to determine if video is requested
20:19:53 <Josh_Soref> ... The fact that any video constraint exists under mandatory means that video is required
20:20:06 <Josh_Soref> ... if it was only requested in optional, then it was optional
20:20:14 <Josh_Soref> XZ: wouldn't there be a way to say
20:20:24 <Josh_Soref> ... "if i get video, i need video with this properties"
20:20:35 <Josh_Soref> burn: i'm not sure if there's a way to optionally request audio with constraints
20:20:41 <Josh_Soref> anant: is there a UC for this?
20:20:54 <Josh_Soref> burn: I can't think of one
20:21:09 <Josh_Soref> ... i can't think of a case where you'd say "i'd like audio, and have it optional"
20:21:16 <Josh_Soref> s/,/",/
20:21:22 <Josh_Soref> s/optional"/optional/
20:21:30 <Josh_Soref> anant: we need a bit more thought over there
20:21:38 <Josh_Soref> burn: i could live with that
20:21:45 <Zakim> + +1.650.241.aaaa
20:21:47 <Josh_Soref> ... i can think of optional constraints
20:21:56 <Josh_Soref> ... but not on getting/not getting the stream
20:22:04 <burn> burn has joined #mediacap
20:22:05 <bryan> is the optionality in at least some use cases intended to allow UI to enable the user to decide?
20:22:06 <Josh_Soref> anant: between example 1 and 2, it seems inconsistent
20:22:25 <Josh_Soref> ... are the top level keys {mandatory:{}, optional:{}, video:{}, audio:{}}
20:22:34 <Josh_Soref> burn: in Alternative 2, but not Alternative 1
20:22:46 <Josh_Soref> bryan: it seems one UC for optionality is to let the User choose
20:22:53 <Josh_Soref> ... the app could work just as well w/ no audio
20:23:01 <Josh_Soref> ... you don't know if the user is a Signing user or a Speaking user
20:23:02 <burn> zakim, I am Dan_Burnett
20:23:02 <Zakim> ok, burn, I now associate you with Dan_Burnett
20:23:09 <Josh_Soref> XA: you're right
20:23:14 <Josh_Soref> ... you could start with Video for Video chart
20:23:17 <Josh_Soref> s/chart/chat/
20:23:18 <hta> hta has joined #mediacap
20:23:21 <Josh_Soref> ... and add audio later
20:23:26 <Josh_Soref> burn: this is interesting
20:23:34 <stefanh> s/XA/anant/
20:23:37 <Josh_Soref> ... because none of these syntaxes support audio optional, but with constraints
20:23:42 <anant> or, more likely, start audoo and "upgrade" to video :)
20:23:48 <anant> s/audoo/audio
20:23:52 <Josh_Soref> ... or video optional but with constraints
20:24:02 <Josh_Soref> burn: the fact that you have the object
20:24:09 <Josh_Soref> ... is essentially saying... you expect to get the stream
20:24:09 <bryan> I'm not sure about the constraints importance in an optional context
20:24:17 <Josh_Soref> ... however, if they want an optional audio stream
20:24:24 <Josh_Soref> ... the reason it's optional is so the user can say "no"
20:24:37 <Josh_Soref> ... that doesn't change the desire of the application to request parameters for a stream it receives
20:24:39 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: +1
20:24:52 <bryan> ok, understand better now... +1
20:25:02 <Josh_Soref> XB: perhaps you could have 
20:25:12 <Josh_Soref> burn: so Audio + Video keys
20:25:21 <Josh_Soref> ... indicate mandatory / optionality of the stream itself
20:25:29 <stefanh> s/XB/adambe/
20:25:30 <Josh_Soref> XB: then you can have the same constraint set
20:25:35 <Josh_Soref> s/XB/adambe/
20:25:56 <Josh_Soref> burn: one disadvantage is that you go back to the longer constraint names
20:26:06 <Josh_Soref> ... for a moment, i thought we were about to agree on the approach of alternative one
20:26:11 <Josh_Soref> adambe: sorry for that
20:26:26 <Josh_Soref> burn: i never intended to provide an opportunity for a stream to be optional
20:26:31 <Josh_Soref> ... only for constraints to be optional
20:26:38 <Josh_Soref> ... i'll probably have to go back and think about this some more
20:26:46 <Josh_Soref> ... in order to have it work in the ways we've discussed
20:26:52 <Josh_Soref> ... to support optional streams
20:26:56 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm not saying it couldn't be done
20:27:03 <Josh_Soref> ... but it's non-trivial to address
20:27:10 <Josh_Soref> ... so, i'm asking: how important is that?
20:27:19 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't think we've ever discussed optional streams
20:27:26 <Josh_Soref> anant: because before we had hints
20:27:30 <Josh_Soref> ... and everything was optional
20:27:34 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
20:27:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/09-mediacap-minutes.html Josh_Soref
20:27:48 <Josh_Soref> ... i think you're fine for deferring this for now
20:27:55 <Josh_Soref> ... and maybe we discuss it further on the ML
20:28:03 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: the chairs sent a message last week
20:28:08 <Josh_Soref> ... saying we thought it was time to
20:28:13 <Josh_Soref> ... BBB
20:28:21 <Josh_Soref> ... but maybe we need more thinking time
20:28:36 <Josh_Soref> adambe: we could put it in the draft
20:28:46 <Josh_Soref> ... and if we pick alternative 1 or 2
20:28:56 <Josh_Soref> ... and we could discuss optional streams later
20:29:07 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: in this meeting, is alternative 1 or 2 preferred
20:29:08 <anant> I prefer alternative 1
20:29:17 <Josh_Soref> burn: without optional streams, i'd prefer alternative 1
20:29:25 <Josh_Soref> ... with optional streams, i think alternative 2
20:29:45 <Josh_Soref> anant: i think we could put alternative 1 in now
20:29:51 <Josh_Soref> ... and when we rethink things, we could change it
20:29:57 <Josh_Soref> adambe: i think optional streams is written in the notes
20:30:04 <Josh_Soref> ... shouldn't it be optional TRACKs?
20:30:07 <Josh_Soref> burn: yes
20:30:14 <Josh_Soref> ... you're correct
20:30:18 <Josh_Soref> ... i wrote this when we weren't clear
20:30:30 <Josh_Soref> ... what will go into the document will very quickly need to change to Track
20:30:35 <Josh_Soref> ... if i say Stream, i mean Track
20:30:45 <Josh_Soref> ... i guess we could do a quick check
20:30:50 <Josh_Soref> ... anant, i see you prefer alternative 1
20:30:57 <Josh_Soref> anant: yep
20:31:01 <Josh_Soref> burn: i'm fine iwth that
20:31:12 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: I think I favor alternative 1
20:31:34 <Josh_Soref> burn: I also favor alternative 1
20:31:44 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: i think we have consensus to put alternative 1 in the draft
20:31:53 <Josh_Soref> ... i will adjust the enums to strings
20:31:58 <stefanh> s/stefanh/hta/
20:32:22 <Josh_Soref> PROPOSED ACTION burn to write alternative 1 into the draft
20:32:41 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: dom, Actions will go into another tracker?
20:32:44 <Josh_Soref> ... for media capture?
20:32:46 <Josh_Soref> dom: yes
20:32:55 <Josh_Soref> ACTION burn to write alternative 1 into the draft
20:32:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1 - Write alternative 1 into the draft [on Daniel Burnett - due 2012-05-16].
20:33:03 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Resource reservation
20:33:10 <Josh_Soref> s/reservation/Reservation/
20:33:16 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: i sent an email about this
20:33:44 <Josh_Soref> ... about whether it would reserve
20:33:53 <Josh_Soref> ... initially or when it's used
20:33:55 <anant> q+
20:33:57 <Josh_Soref> ... there was some discussion on the list
20:34:19 <Josh_Soref> ... there's some argument for an application to ask at load time for permission
20:34:24 <Josh_Soref> ... but there's a drawback
20:34:36 <Josh_Soref> ... "what does a media stream with an enabled track mean?"
20:34:44 <Josh_Soref> ... another web/native application could use it
20:34:55 <Josh_Soref> hta: that's not a very clear item
20:35:07 <Josh_Soref> ... we don't know if a camera/microphone has exclusive access
20:35:16 <Josh_Soref> ... in Chrome today, any number can have the camera open
20:35:21 <Josh_Soref> ... so far we haven't implemented constraints
20:35:41 <Josh_Soref> ... my assumption, is ideal
20:35:46 <Josh_Soref> ... we'd take the 
20:36:05 <hta> zakim, who is here?
20:36:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see Josh_Soref (muted), Dan_Burnett, adambe, Stefan_Hakansson, bryan, Jim_Barnett, dom, fjh, Cathy, [Mozilla], [Mozilla.a], +1.650.241.aaaa
20:36:08 <Zakim> [Mozilla.a] has anant
20:36:08 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has derf
20:36:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see hta, burn, bryan, Cathy, adambe, anant, fjh, stefanh, RRSAgent, Zakim, Josh_Soref, derf, dom, trackbot
20:36:13 <hta> zakim, aaaa is me
20:36:13 <Zakim> +hta; got it
20:36:16 <Josh_Soref> derf: there's of course the possibility that an app other than chrome takes control of the camera
20:36:28 <Josh_Soref> ... between request, and attaching to a destination
20:36:33 <Josh_Soref> anant: one thing we're experimenting with
20:36:40 <Josh_Soref> ... is having getUserMedia reserve the device
20:36:43 <Josh_Soref> ... but not activate it
20:36:52 <Josh_Soref> ... if we can't reserve the device, the call fails
20:36:57 <Josh_Soref> ... if video was mandatory
20:37:02 <Josh_Soref> ... we don't activate the device
20:37:05 <Josh_Soref> ... the camera isn't turned on
20:37:10 <Josh_Soref> ... and no data is sent
20:37:22 <Josh_Soref> ... but when the stream is tied to a canvas/MediaStream
20:37:25 <Josh_Soref> ... it is turned on
20:37:40 <Josh_Soref> ... we haven't tackled the question of allowing more than one application to have access to the camera
20:37:47 <bryan> Android does not support multiple app access to camera AFAIK
20:37:50 <Josh_Soref> ... it might have unintended user consequences
20:38:04 <adambe> derf
20:38:14 <Josh_Soref> derf: the thing that concerns me, is that the user could forget the app that asked for permission
20:38:24 <Josh_Soref> anant: the way i planned to address that
20:38:44 <Zakim> +jesup
20:38:44 <bryan> reservation is an interesting feature but needs to be clear to the user in the permissions UI
20:38:51 <Josh_Soref> ... is that we'd tell the user that a second thing is asking
20:39:04 <Josh_Soref> ... indicating which is using it currently
20:39:10 <Josh_Soref> derf: i'm less concerned with that case
20:39:17 <Josh_Soref> ... than with the case of a single page asking
20:39:20 <Josh_Soref> ... and not using it for a while
20:39:26 <Josh_Soref> ... and the user forgetting
20:39:29 <bryan> the error callback would need to clarify that a reservation error occured
20:39:30 <jesup> jesup has joined #mediacap
20:39:32 <Josh_Soref> ... and then the app later turning it on
20:39:40 <jesup> I'm on the 610 number
20:39:42 <Josh_Soref> hta: we're thinking of tray notification
20:39:58 <Josh_Soref> s/I'm on the 610 number//
20:40:16 <Josh_Soref> anant: we could show the video active in the tab notice
20:40:24 <Josh_Soref> ... and disband when the tab close
20:40:36 <Josh_Soref> adambe: i don't care about copying video buffers around
20:40:43 <adambe> derf again
20:40:49 <Josh_Soref> s/adambe/derf/
20:40:52 <Josh_Soref> s/derf again//
20:40:59 <Josh_Soref> hta: the distinction is that when you call gUM
20:41:04 <Josh_Soref> ... the tray icon appears
20:41:12 <Josh_Soref> ... and when you connect to a sink, the light turns on
20:41:20 <Josh_Soref> jesup: not every camera has a light to turn on
20:41:29 <Josh_Soref> hta: right, and some of them are under software control
20:41:40 <Josh_Soref> bryan: if we give the requesting app some indication
20:41:44 <Josh_Soref> ... that it failed because it was reserved
20:41:51 <Josh_Soref> ... that would let it give some UI to the user
20:42:04 <Josh_Soref> ... and the UI for the user on a reservation would need to be clear
20:42:07 <Josh_Soref> anant: i agree
20:42:10 <Josh_Soref> ... especially for incoming calls
20:42:17 <Josh_Soref> ... if you're on a page, and aren't currently using the call
20:42:23 <Josh_Soref> s/call/camera/
20:42:31 <Josh_Soref> ... but if you get a call,
20:42:42 <Josh_Soref> ... you may want to accept the call and drop the camera
20:42:49 <Josh_Soref> anant: if the Browser can't get access
20:42:56 <Josh_Soref> ... then it'll fail
20:43:05 <Josh_Soref> ... but if the Browser has two apps 
20:43:12 <Josh_Soref> ... then it can switch internally
20:43:18 <Josh_Soref> bryan: if i'm using a code-scanning
20:43:23 <Josh_Soref> ... and i get a call
20:43:27 <Josh_Soref> ... i wouldn't want the app to fail
20:43:36 <Josh_Soref> anant: i'm describing getting a case which lets the user
20:43:47 <Josh_Soref> ... transfer the video from one browser app to another
20:43:58 <Josh_Soref> adambe: if we can't tell the User that the app is currently using it
20:44:09 <Josh_Soref> ... in Windows, you always get this frustrating thing
20:44:10 <Josh_Soref> q?
20:44:13 <Josh_Soref> ack anant 
20:44:15 <anant> q-
20:44:19 <Josh_Soref> ... "the file is in use"
20:44:31 <Josh_Soref> q+ to note that modern Windows says which app and has a "switch to"
20:44:49 <Josh_Soref> ... we have a request, a reservation, and a start reading phase
20:45:00 <Josh_Soref> ... talking about reservation
20:45:03 <Josh_Soref> ... you don't get the benefits
20:45:10 <Josh_Soref> ... the stream can't monitor the underlying source
20:45:15 <Josh_Soref> ... if you only reserve
20:45:19 <Josh_Soref> ... you have drawbacks
20:45:25 <Josh_Soref> ... but you can't monitor the stream
20:45:31 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, who is making noise?
20:45:40 <Josh_Soref> anant: i don't fully understand that
20:45:41 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Mozilla.a] (90%), hta (35%)
20:45:49 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, mute Mozilla.a
20:45:49 <Zakim> [Mozilla.a] should now be muted
20:45:53 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, unmute Mozilla.a
20:45:53 <Zakim> [Mozilla.a] should no longer be muted
20:45:57 <bryan> oops
20:46:11 <bryan> or me
20:46:16 <Josh_Soref> anant: for practical purposes, 
20:46:20 <Josh_Soref> ... get ... reservation
20:46:22 <Josh_Soref> ... is made
20:46:25 <Josh_Soref> ... it's an optimization
20:46:33 <Josh_Soref> ... with no sink, we don't need to move frames around
20:46:35 <Josh_Soref> ... you can observe it
20:46:40 <Josh_Soref> ... but we haven't turned on the camera
20:46:55 <Josh_Soref> hta: throwing away frames isn't a good thing
20:47:00 <Josh_Soref> ... on mobile, that's bad for your battery
20:47:07 <anant> s/hta/adambe
20:47:22 <Josh_Soref> ... for a long running application
20:47:25 <Josh_Soref> ... (chat)
20:47:30 <Josh_Soref> ... you want to be able to make a reservation
20:47:35 <Josh_Soref> anant: for a gUM
20:47:43 <Josh_Soref> ... the reservation is an internal detail
20:47:50 <Josh_Soref> ... for all practical purposes
20:47:56 <Josh_Soref> ... if gUM succeeds, you will be able to get frames
20:48:04 <Josh_Soref> ... because you have a hold
20:48:13 <Josh_Soref> adambe: it's a bit different than a native app
20:48:30 <Josh_Soref> anant: the incoming call case is different from the chat case
20:48:42 <Josh_Soref> ... we want to discourage pages from eagerly requesting
20:48:46 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: i agree with anant 
20:48:52 <Josh_Soref> ... this seems like the cleaner approach
20:48:56 <Josh_Soref> q?
20:48:57 <Josh_Soref> ack Josh_Soref 
20:48:58 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to note that modern Windows says which app and has a "switch to"
20:49:14 <Josh_Soref> anant: maybe we can write this up and send it to the list
20:49:28 <Josh_Soref> ... and if we get consensus, we can draft it into a document
20:49:35 <Josh_Soref> ... this may be an authoring guide
20:49:45 <Josh_Soref> ... if someone calls eagerly
20:49:48 <Josh_Soref> ... and another app asks
20:49:58 <Josh_Soref> ... the UA can let the User terminate the early request
20:50:09 <Josh_Soref> adambe: talking about the Stream API
20:50:19 <Josh_Soref> ... this would make it more consistent with a network stream
20:50:25 <Josh_Soref> ... you have a natural flow all the time
20:50:28 <Josh_Soref> ... someone is sending data
20:50:37 <Josh_Soref> ... it would make local+remote streams more similar
20:51:01 <Josh_Soref> anant: that seems like a good side-effect
20:51:10 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Several Active Devices
20:51:20 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: we touched on this briefly at the last call
20:51:30 <Josh_Soref> anant: what do we mean by several devices
20:51:37 <Josh_Soref> ... is that several mic's + cameras?
20:51:51 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: if you have 2 cameras and want to use both
20:51:57 <Josh_Soref> ... do you call gUM multiple times
20:52:02 <Josh_Soref> ... or do you get multiple Tracks?
20:52:18 <Josh_Soref> anant: I think we need more UCs in the Scenarios doc
20:52:25 <Josh_Soref> ... and even if we have this UC
20:52:30 <Josh_Soref> ... how important is this UC?
20:52:39 <Josh_Soref> ... we could provide additional Constraint
20:52:52 <Josh_Soref> ... changing gUM depends on how important we think this UC is
20:53:09 <Josh_Soref> ... if we don't change this, we let the App call gUM multiple times
20:53:23 <Josh_Soref> ... where they get 2 MediaStreams, one camera per stream
20:53:33 <Josh_Soref> ... in the first case, you get 1 MediaStream with multiple tracks
20:53:43 <Josh_Soref> ... it depends on how important the UC is
20:53:51 <Josh_Soref> ... and we could just use Constraints
20:54:04 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: you could combine multiple MediaStreams into one
20:54:14 <Josh_Soref> anant: yes, using the MediaStream Constructor
20:54:32 <Josh_Soref> ... it depends on input from developers
20:54:44 <Josh_Soref> XD: how do you determine cameras?
20:54:47 <Josh_Soref> anant: it's user choice
20:55:03 <stefanh> s/XS/jesup/
20:55:12 <stefanh> s/XD/jesup/
20:55:18 <Josh_Soref> s|s/XS/jesup/||
20:55:29 <Josh_Soref> burn: we haven't talked about distinguishing
20:55:36 <Josh_Soref> anant: what is the type of distinction?
20:55:43 <Josh_Soref> burn: user/env front/back
20:56:02 <Josh_Soref> q+ to note that you could have 3 identical cameras that are only distinguishable by the user
20:56:11 <Josh_Soref> anant: you could have "rotatable cameras"
20:56:15 <Josh_Soref> ... that's fuzzy
20:56:17 <Josh_Soref> burn: i agree
20:56:27 <Josh_Soref> ... and that's independent of how you specify it
20:56:33 <Josh_Soref> anant: I'm leaning to have multiple gUM calls
20:56:37 <Josh_Soref> ... one per camera
20:56:44 <Josh_Soref> ... it depends on how important it is
20:56:50 <Josh_Soref> ... how frequent we expect this to be
20:57:01 <Josh_Soref> adambe: i think the specification doesn't say anything about this
20:57:14 <Josh_Soref> ... and the fact that MediaStreams can contain several streams of each type
20:57:28 <Josh_Soref> ... I think we need to specify that the UI should only allow the user to select one of each type
20:57:36 <Josh_Soref> ack me
20:57:36 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to note that you could have 3 identical cameras that are only distinguishable by the user
20:57:50 <Zakim> -[Mozilla.a]
20:57:52 <Josh_Soref> burn: at some point we need to make a decision
20:58:07 <Josh_Soref> ... if we decide that gUM can only return one Track of each type
20:58:19 <Josh_Soref> ... then the way you're describing it is how we should be explicit in the spec
20:58:35 <Josh_Soref> adambe: LocalStreams could only have one of each type
20:58:39 <Josh_Soref> ... an empty list is something
20:58:45 <Josh_Soref> ... a list of one thing is something
20:59:07 <Zakim> +[Mozilla.a]
20:59:11 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: i don't know if we should take this to the list
20:59:22 <Josh_Soref> ... at this point i'm leaning toward
20:59:27 <Josh_Soref> ... I guess we should take this to the list again
20:59:36 <anant> Zakim, [Mozilla.a] contains anant
20:59:36 <Zakim> +anant; got it
20:59:44 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Stored Permissions
20:59:50 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: hta, you proposed this
21:00:36 <Josh_Soref> hta: "this application can use my camera any time"
21:00:41 <Josh_Soref> ... if you have stored permissions
21:00:46 <Josh_Soref> ... you need a UI for managing them
21:00:52 <Josh_Soref> ... Chrome for picking which camera to use
21:00:58 <Josh_Soref> ... is only invoked at checking permissions
21:01:04 <Josh_Soref> ... then if you've given an app permission
21:01:13 <Josh_Soref> ... how does the app get back to the Camera selection dialog?
21:01:25 <Josh_Soref> jesup: I think you need to be able to have a way to select the selection dialog regardless of this
21:01:36 <Josh_Soref> ... wanting to have a way to flip between front and back on a mobile device
21:01:43 <Josh_Soref> ... that problem has to be addressed anyway
21:01:48 <Josh_Soref> ... possibly another gUM call
21:01:52 <Josh_Soref> ... our thinking on this has been
21:02:06 <Josh_Soref> ... having ongoing permissions tied to app installation
21:02:16 <Josh_Soref> hta: yes, that's one way of managing
21:02:27 <Josh_Soref> ... if you have an app permission mechanism
21:02:38 <Josh_Soref> ... and everything else lives with temporary permissions
21:02:45 <Josh_Soref> jesup: tha'ts our current way of thinking
21:02:57 <Josh_Soref> hta: for getting the dialog when you wouldn't normally need to have them
21:03:01 <Josh_Soref> s/tha'ts/that's/
21:03:08 <Josh_Soref> ... is to have a constraint "really ask the user"
21:03:14 <Josh_Soref> burn: constraints for asking permissions
21:03:24 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't understand
21:03:33 <Josh_Soref> hta: something in the constraints dictionary that says
21:03:37 <Josh_Soref> ... "ask user to pick device"
21:03:46 <Josh_Soref> ... ask-user-yes
21:03:50 <Josh_Soref> adambe: app has permissions
21:03:53 <Josh_Soref> ... but wants to prompt?
21:04:01 <Josh_Soref> hta: app has permission for front
21:04:05 <Josh_Soref> ... but wants the back camera
21:04:23 <Josh_Soref> adambe: i guess the browser database needs to specify which camera the app has been authorized to use
21:04:32 <Josh_Soref> ... then if you use gUM 
21:04:41 <Josh_Soref> ... you can get a prompt for the camera you didn't previously authorize
21:04:54 <Josh_Soref> hta: so a db w/ each camera is its own permission domain?
21:04:58 <Josh_Soref> adambe: it doesn't sound nice
21:05:01 <Josh_Soref> ... but perhaps
21:05:16 <Josh_Soref> ... i wouldn't be comfortable with the application being able to freely swich
21:05:20 <Josh_Soref> ... if i gave permission for one
21:05:31 <Josh_Soref> ... for it to switch from one, to the next, to the next
21:05:42 <Josh_Soref> jesup: if you gave the app permission to all of your cameras?
21:05:49 <Josh_Soref> adambe: i guess so, it'd be a different kind of permission
21:05:57 <Josh_Soref> jesup: the only ones you'd be giving this to
21:06:06 <Josh_Soref> ... are ones you trust at a desktop/plugin install
21:06:13 <Josh_Soref> ... which gives full access
21:06:29 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't know if there's something to be gained for such fine grained control
21:06:37 <Josh_Soref> adambe: i agree with you
21:06:43 <Josh_Soref> ... it's only risky applications on the web
21:06:49 <Josh_Soref> jesup: for stored applications
21:06:56 <Josh_Soref> ... because of the trust you're giving them
21:07:07 <Josh_Soref> ... i think All or None is enough
21:07:12 <Josh_Soref> ... it simplifies the UI
21:07:15 <Josh_Soref> q+ to cry
21:07:29 <Josh_Soref> adambe: that kind of application wouldn't use this UI at all
21:07:35 <Josh_Soref> ... it could put up a self view of all cameras
21:07:41 <Josh_Soref> ... and say "which do you want to use"
21:07:50 <Josh_Soref> ... in gUM, it's selection + permission
21:08:04 <Josh_Soref> jesup: correct, someone with that kind of app might want to do it themselves
21:08:06 <Josh_Soref> q?
21:08:08 <Josh_Soref> ack me
21:08:08 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to cry
21:09:02 <fjh> fjh has joined #mediacap
21:10:32 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: ...
21:10:40 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, mute me
21:10:40 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should now be muted
21:10:51 <Josh_Soref> ... there are cases where a user wants to use a "Camera" app
21:11:07 <Josh_Soref> ... but doesn't realize it's going to randomly snoop on the other camera
21:11:44 <Josh_Soref> q+ to note that users don't read permissions dialogs - ever
21:11:55 <Josh_Soref> ... There's also the fact that the App wants to use the system picker
21:12:02 <Josh_Soref> ... because it doesn't want to build the UI itself
21:12:13 <Josh_Soref> ... or because it wants to have the standard system look and feel for the camera picker
21:12:20 <Josh_Soref> jesup: I agree with the second case
21:12:33 <Josh_Soref> ... I don't think there are many env- only camera applications
21:12:41 <Josh_Soref> ... that would never want to access the other camera
21:12:55 <Josh_Soref> ... e.g. instagram would probably want to be able to use either camera
21:13:07 <Josh_Soref> ... there might be a UC for a native UI to toggle cameras
21:13:20 <Josh_Soref> adambe: do you think there might be a UC for
21:13:23 <Josh_Soref> ... a toggle button
21:13:33 <Josh_Soref> jesup: I think for a dedicated app, like skype
21:13:43 <Josh_Soref> ... an in App button is pretty common
21:13:51 <Josh_Soref> adambe: in the other case
21:13:56 <Josh_Soref> ... toggling from an external ui
21:14:01 <Josh_Soref> ... wouldn't it be problematic
21:14:07 <Josh_Soref> ... if you send a stream with a resolution/framerate
21:14:10 <Josh_Soref> ... and you toggle
21:14:24 <Josh_Soref> ... and the JS application gets a different frame-rate/resolution
21:14:34 <Josh_Soref> ... do you think that should be invisible for the app
21:14:47 <Josh_Soref> jesup: i would have no problem with the application getting an event notification
21:14:56 <Josh_Soref> ... i think the system needs to be able to deal with those changes anyway
21:15:07 <Josh_Soref> ... and applications need to be able to deal with them anyway
21:15:13 <Josh_Soref> ... if need be, changing resolutions on streams
21:15:18 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't see a problem there
21:15:34 <Josh_Soref> ... there could be ways where it happens now
21:15:44 <Josh_Soref> ... if the user supplies a Video file instead of a Camera
21:15:51 <Josh_Soref> ... the file may have resolution/framerate changes in it
21:15:59 <Josh_Soref> ... you have no ability to change it, you have to adapt to it
21:16:09 <Josh_Soref> adambe: it's quite important to be able to mute the camera from the browser ui
21:16:13 <Josh_Soref> jesup: absolutely, critical
21:16:19 <Josh_Soref> ... because you can't trust the app to do it
21:16:25 <Josh_Soref> adambe: that would also be a stream change
21:16:31 <Josh_Soref> jesup: the camera may stop sending video
21:16:35 <Josh_Soref> ... change its frame rate
21:16:50 <Josh_Soref> ... you can't count on the camera to keep a constant frame-rate
21:16:56 <Josh_Soref> q?
21:16:58 <Josh_Soref> ack me
21:16:58 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to note that users don't read permissions dialogs - ever
21:17:02 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, mute me
21:17:02 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should now be muted
21:17:12 <Josh_Soref> hta: i think we have gotten a good handling of the issues
21:17:19 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't see a concrete suggestion about language
21:17:30 <Josh_Soref> ... anyone else want to speak on this topic?
21:17:43 <Josh_Soref> ... stefanh: any other topics?
21:17:50 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: there is quite a long list of open items
21:18:00 <Josh_Soref> ... i think we need to start addressing them
21:18:08 <Josh_Soref> ... any input would be valuable
21:18:18 <stefanh> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Media_Capture#Open_Items
21:18:26 <Josh_Soref> hta: the WebRTC meeting is coming up
21:18:34 <Josh_Soref> ... June 11 in Stockholm
21:18:41 <Josh_Soref> ... and 2 days of RTCWeb meetings
21:18:48 <Josh_Soref> s/and/followed by/
21:19:54 <dom> -> http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/wiki/June_11_2012 WebRTC Meeting June 11
21:19:54 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: there was some mention of MediaStream in the HTML WG F2F last week, I hope to send minutes for it later this week
21:20:19 <hta> Link: http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/wiki/June_11_2012
21:20:23 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, unmute me
21:20:23 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should no longer be muted
21:20:53 <Josh_Soref> s/Link: http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/wiki/June_11_2012//
21:20:58 <Josh_Soref> s|s/Link: http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/wiki/June_11_2012//||
21:21:01 <Josh_Soref> s|Link: http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/wiki/June_11_2012||
21:22:21 <Josh_Soref> ACTION anant to describe that getUserMedia reserves the devices, causing the "camera to appear busy"
21:22:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Describe that getUserMedia reserves the devices, causing the "camera to appear busy" [on Anant Narayanan - due 2012-05-16].
21:22:39 <Josh_Soref> ACTION anant to add a UI guidelines about "camera is busy because of X" when another request is made
21:22:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Add a UI guidelines about "camera is busy because of X" when another request is made [on Anant Narayanan - due 2012-05-16].
21:23:27 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: if app 1 calls getUserMedia
21:23:31 <Josh_Soref> ... and gets  a camera
21:23:36 <Josh_Soref> ... and app 2 calls getUserMedia
21:23:51 <Josh_Soref> ... then the user can be shown a dialog with both camera
21:23:55 <Josh_Soref> s/camera/cameras/
21:24:07 <Josh_Soref> ... the in use one could appear in use but with a preview
21:24:14 <Josh_Soref> ... if the user selects that in use camera
21:25:09 <Josh_Soref> ... then the UA can indicate the other Web App that is using it
21:25:14 <Josh_Soref> ... allowing the user to steal it
21:25:20 <Josh_Soref> anant: For Desktop cases,
21:25:37 <Josh_Soref> ... where the Camera is in use by another app running as the same user on the system
21:25:40 <Josh_Soref> ... we could steal it
21:26:06 <Josh_Soref> ... but we couldn't if it runs as another user (or more privileged user)
21:26:16 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: I'd like to thanks Josh_Soref for scribing every meeting
21:26:16 <Zakim> -bryan
21:26:18 <anant> Josh_Soref++
21:26:20 <Josh_Soref> ... really grateful
21:26:21 <Zakim> -fjh
21:26:25 <Josh_Soref> [ Adjourned ]
21:26:31 <Josh_Soref> trackbot, end meeting
21:26:31 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
21:26:31 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Josh_Soref, [Mozilla], Dan_Burnett, adambe, Stefan_Hakansson, bryan, Jim_Barnett, dom, fjh, Cathy, anant, derf, +1.650.241.aaaa, hta, jesup
21:26:35 <Zakim> -dom
21:26:35 <Zakim> -[Mozilla.a]
21:26:36 <Zakim> -Jim_Barnett
21:26:36 <Zakim> -adambe
21:26:36 <Zakim> -jesup
21:26:37 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
21:26:38 <Zakim> -hta
21:26:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
21:26:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/09-mediacap-minutes.html trackbot
21:26:39 <Zakim> -Stefan_Hakansson
21:26:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
21:26:40 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
21:26:41 <Zakim> -Cathy