W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > December 2009

RE: <input type=photo> etc as Capture API

From: <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 17:17:40 +0100
Message-ID: <355A518BC0575547B2A3D6773AAF8EEF6CAD1A@ftrdmel1>
To: <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>, <BS3131@att.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
But there is also this proposal, equally applicable to the Capture API:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Dec/0005.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tran, Dzung D
> Sent: 02 December 2009 16:14
> To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW); public-device-apis@w3.org
> Subject: RE: <input type=photo> etc as Capture API
> 
> Totally agree here.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 08:05 AM
> To: public-device-apis@w3.org
> Subject: <input type=photo> etc as Capture API
> 
> Re the proposal to use something along the lines of <input 
> type=photo> to invoke a capture function, that is not an API, 
> but a "user input selection method". An API is a method via 
> which an application invokes a function. There should be no 
> inherent reason that the user must be involved in the 
> invocation of that function (or that there is even a user 
> present). There may be security-related UI considerations 
> that mean that <input type=photo> is a usable approach to 
> getting input to the application, or other security-related 
> UI functions invoked by the web runtime e.g. per a policy 
> framework, but those should not be the only or mandated approaches.
> 
> We need the ability of applications to be able to interact 
> with device functions without explicit use-by-use involvement 
> of the user. Mandating user explicit user control of each API 
> invocation will result in a unusable user experience, and 
> completely misses the point of defining an API.
> 
> The BONDI Camera API provides a good model for how this 
> should work. If W3C chooses to define only something along 
> the lines of a <input type=photo> method, then I believe the 
> market will quickly speak to the sufficiency of that 
> approach, and other API designs such as the BONDI Camera API 
> will be more successful.
> 
> Best regards,
> Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 16:18:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:02 GMT