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

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

From: Tran, Dzung D <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:03:05 -0800
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <753F67ADE6F5094C9F1DBA00D1BAA8D312D5B157DF@orsmsx501.amr.corp.intel.com>

>> How do you envision your work integrate with Device API WG's current 
>> spec? Is there some hand off between your <device> selector and Device 
>> API? Or not?
>
> Which spec did you have in mind?
>

I was thinking of the current work with the Capture APIs as: http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/

I think in one of the example from Andrei Popescu you could handle the non-streaming capture as:

<device type="mediaFile" onchange="update(this.data)">

function update(file) {  // file is an object that implements interface File
}

So, is there a need for the Capture APIs?

Thanks
Dzung Tran


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 08:43 PM
To: Tran, Dzung D
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: RE: <device> proposal (for video conferencing, etc)

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Tran, Dzung D wrote:
> 
> Thanks for putting this together after exhaustive discussions on this 
> topic. I thought the <device> is a good start for a device selector. I 
> also like the fact that this would allow the UA to decide on the 
> appropriate UI for selection.
> 
> Also on your comment about codec, Is there away you can negotiate the 
> formats between the client-server in similar to DLNA?

Assuming we want to ensure that any client can communicate with any other 
client, at a minimum we would need at least one common codec. If we have 
one common codec, then there's no need for others. Thus, I don't see that 
we'd need format negotiation.


> How do you envision the "type" attribute to evolve as new type of 
> devices become available?

Hard to say. I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not. If we do think that 
using the same UI for, say, cameras and flash drives makes sense, then 
each type of device which uses a different kind of object would get a new 
type="" value, and then the .data attribute would return the relevant kind 
of object for the given type. So for example for type=media it would 
return a Stream, and for type="filesystem" it would return a FileSystem, 
or LocalFS, or whatever we call the filesystem object, etc.


> How do you envision your work integrate with Device API WG's current 
> spec? Is there some hand off between your <device> selector and Device 
> API? Or not?

Which spec did you have in mind?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2009 05:03:43 GMT

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