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

Re: <device> proposal (for video conferencing, etc)

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:37:12 +0100
To: "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org, "Ben Murdoch" <benm@google.com>
Message-ID: <op.u409gaxv64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:22:32 +0100, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>  
wrote:
> One reason for this separation is that we want to leave the <input>
> tag for form submission. This is all fine but, at the same time, there
> are use cases where an application may want a static image from the
> camera but may not want to submit any form. So, in such a case, we are
> after all misusing the <input> tag?

I do not think we should view it that way. Nowadays there are many  
applications that use <input> without the associated submission semantics  
it gets when embedded in <form>.

The difference with <device> here is that you cannot meaningfully  
integrate it with the <form> submission model so it makes sense to  
completely separate it.


> If I understand the example correctly, the video element will show the
> output of the user's camera (i.e. act as an embedded camera viewport).
> To be able to implement video chat, we also need a way to see the
> remote party, so we need a way to send the Stream over to some server.
>  I think we should specify the mechanism for doing that (e.g.
> WebSockets::send(Stream stream)).

I believe this is the plan yes, if the general proposal can be made to  
work.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2009 13:38:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:03 GMT