On 08/13/11 01:48, Darin Fisher wrote:
Putting implementation details aside, I agree that it is a bit unfortunate
to refer to a stream as a blob. So far, blobs have always referred to
static, fixed-size things.
This function was originally named createBlobURL, but it was renamed
Imho conceptually streamed media is not the same as data from a file and
thus should be separated. Specifically the code for the video tag for
example now has to ask around what this URL actually points to before taking
action.
/Tommy
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 22:08, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Tommy Widenflycht (�~[~O�~Z��~[~X�~[~X�~Z�) wrote:
Imho conceptually streamed media is not the same as data from a file and
thus should be separated. Specifically the code for the video tag for
example now has to ask around what this URL actually points to before
Putting implementation details aside, I agree that it is a bit unfortunate
to refer to a stream as a blob. So far, blobs have always referred to
static, fixed-size things.
This function was originally named createBlobURL, but it was renamed
createObjectURL precisely because we imagined it being
Would it be possible to give the associated URL for a mediastream to have
its own protocol, for example mediastream:, instead of the proposed blob:?
window . URL . createObjectURL(stream)
Mints a Blob URL to refer to the given MediaStream.
This would tremendously help the implementation.
On 8/11/11 5:13 AM, Tommy Widenflycht (ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ) wrote:
Would it be possible to give the associated URL for a mediastream to have
its own protocol, for example mediastream:, instead of the proposed blob:?
window . URL . createObjectURL(stream)
Mints a Blob URL to refer to the given MediaStream.
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Tommy Widenflycht (�~[~O�~Z��~[~X�~[~X�~Z�) wrote:
Would it be possible to give the associated URL for a mediastream to
have its own protocol, for example mediastream:, instead of the proposed
blob:?
window . URL . createObjectURL(stream)
Mints a Blob URL to refer to
