New issue
Advanced search Search tips

Issue 794643 link

Starred by 2 users

Issue metadata

Status: Untriaged
Owner:
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: ----
Pri: 3
Type: Bug



Sign in to add a comment

Document mapping of MSE frame processing/buffering spec to Chrome's impl

Project Member Reported by wolenetz@chromium.org, Dec 13 2017

Issue description

The current REC MSE spec leaves much to the impl w.r.t. buffering logic (such as dynamic computation of range adjacency thresholds/logic, and 
 (at least in multi-track SourceBuffers), range start times.

This makes it difficult for Chrome devs or even web authors unfamiliar with Chrome's implementation to understand/code review/debug the impl.

The recent addition of buffering by PTS has further complicated the impl logic around the latter.

This bug tracks adding some documentation describing the choices the impl has made (both to comply with spec, and specifics of impl around areas where the spec leaves room for impl variance).

Examples:
* FrameProcessor -> SBS communication of "coded frame group starting", and SBS usage of that
* SBRByPts and SAP-Type-2
* SBS |track_buffer_| management
* audio splicing, audio discard

It would be good to include a primer on the impl's object model, too.

This documentation would also assist finding areas where the spec might need better clarity (perhaps in vNext) to improve interop.
 
Project Member

Comment 1 by sheriffbot@chromium.org, Dec 14

Labels: Hotlist-Recharge-Cold
Status: Untriaged (was: Available)
This issue has been Available for over a year. If it's no longer important or seems unlikely to be fixed, please consider closing it out. If it is important, please re-triage the issue.

Sorry for the inconvenience if the bug really should have been left as Available.

For more details visit https://www.chromium.org/issue-tracking/autotriage - Your friendly Sheriffbot

Comment 2 by dbbrooks@chromium.org, Today (16 hours ago)

Owner: wolenetz@chromium.org
wolenetz@, given the age, could you confirm that this is still intended work? Thanks.

Sign in to add a comment