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

Re: Comparing capture* API vs <input type="file" accept="...">

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:24:11 +0100
To: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>
Cc: public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1259835851.18585.2106.camel@localhost>
Le jeudi 03 décembre 2009 à 11:00 +0100, Arve Bersvendsen a écrit :
> <input type="file" accept="…">, In widgets:
> This is currently marked as "awkward to use", not really, an example:
> 
> <input id="someForm" type="file" accept="image/*" data-foo="bar"><!-- foo  
> and bar is something that to provide a hint to the UA to not launch a file  
> chooser, but rather the camera app)

But that’s already two very unintuitive things to do:
• adding an element in the markup (and so cognitively a control in the
user interface) when what you want is starting programmatically the
capture without a specific interaction from the user,
• adding a possibly platform-specific data- attribute whose semantic
would remain to be seen;

I clearly wouldn’t find myself comfortable using this in a widget, and
even less so telling the world how great a solution it is :) I could
explain it, but I would hardly call that a great programmatic API for
widgets.

I can see that it has some value in keeping compatibilities between
closed and open environments, but that’s really the only thing
not-awkward about it, in my opinion.

Dom
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 10:24:22 GMT

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