New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Should MediaPlaybackQuality keep VideoPlaybackQuality backward compatibility #7
Comments
Some data from the chromium bug: current versions of Safari, Edge and Firefox all support this API, but Chrome does not. In general for such a case (without knowing details of the behavior of this specific API), the most pragmatic path to interop is to spec something that's close to (maybe a subset of) whatever is already shipping in these browsers and also ship in Chrome. It seems unlikely that WebKit, Gecko and EdgeHTML will all be willing to remove this API unless the usage is incredibly low. I did a quick HTTP Archive search and found that ~37k of the top 500k websites include the string 'getVideoPlaybackQuality', coming from scripts from ~300 different origins (eg. so YouTube embeds counted exactly once, since they were a substantial fraction of the 37k). I spot checked a few and they all appeared to be in video players, often with some fallback for a webkit-prefixed API when not present. So at first glance, it doesn't seem likely that Gecko at least (and probably Edge) would be able to remove this API without substantial compat risk or needing to instead ship some webkit-prefixed APIs. But I didn't dig in more detail. |
Of course, none of this is to say that the API shouldn't be relegated to some "legacy - obsolete, do not use" section of the spec. There's lots of precedent for that. |
I'm confused. If |
Is Google's resistance this API caused by Chrome's implementation making it hard to count dropped and corrupted frames? We have tier-1 streaming sites using our drop frame count to successfully do rate adaption, so the VideoPlaybackkQuality API as defined is clearly useful when correctly implemented. |
The concerns are about the API as it was defined and the resulting implementations. We believe these issues should be addressed and that further iteration is necessary. For examples, see w3c/media-source#69 and w3c/media-source#76. It's also worth noting that Note that the latter issue says that Firefox always reports 0 for /cc @wolenetz |
Searching for "VideoFrames" in those issues I find these concerns:
For The other two sound like implementation bugs, both Is there anything more that I've overlooked? |
If I recall correctly, there might be implementations cannot support Dropped frames is probably the most useful and Chrome has long exposed it ( |
Is there anything a web app might do differently between an implementation that doesn't support it, compared to thinking it's supported at that there are no corrupted frames? |
In Chrome
|
Chrome shipped VideoPlaybackQuality as currently spec'ed. Additional features will extend in a backward compatible fashion or define new APIs without breaking backward compat. |
Questions are:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: