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

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

From: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:22:17 +0100
To: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)" <BS3131@att.com>, public-device-apis@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u4bmjffdbyn2jm@galactica>
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:10:10 +0100, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)  
<BS3131@att.com> wrote:

> Hi Arve,
> Re your responses to my comments:
> " a user agent can probably be configured to allow the synthetication of  
> said event.  I view this largely
> as an implementation detail, not as something subject for a spec."
> [bryan] how then do we ensure interoperability, if it's not in a spec?  
> Do I have to code my app for the specific implementation approach of the  
> web runtime? That would not be good.

Synthesizing the event (in practice, this involves invoking .click() on  
the element) is already covered by other specifications (DOM Level 2  
Events, HTML5, DOM3 Events).

You're not going to get "interoperability" on a capture API anyhow: On the  
open web, browser vendors are highly unlikely to allow unattended access  
to security-sensitive devices such as camera or microphone - just like  
they don't allow unattended access to the filesystem.

In the context of installed/installable web applications, where a trust  
decision has been made on a permanent basis, through some means, it is  
simply a matter of allowing synthetic clicks instead of not allowing them.

> " As for controlling which camera <input> would choose: I'm pretty sure  
> a microdata approach would easily solve this "
> [bryan] Again, how/where would we define the use of the microdata  
> normatively, to ensure interoperability?

The microdata approach would of course have to be specified.

Arve Bersvendsen

Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 17:23:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:41 UTC