W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > July 2010

RE: ACTION-143 - Feedback on the Gallery API

From: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 00:55:39 +0900
Message-ID: <B4EAD1122C31304099A5CDEA5447210F01E1743B@email2>
To: "Anssi Kostiainen" <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
Cc: "W3C Device APIs and Policy WG" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hi. Anssi.
Thanks for additional comments.

I added inline comments as below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anssi Kostiainen
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 1:11 AM
> To: W3C Device APIs and Policy WG
> Subject: Re: ACTION-143 - Feedback on the Gallery API
> 
> 
> On 6.7.2010, at 16.39, Kostiainen Anssi wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here's my feedback on the Gallery API (18 March 2010 version) [1].
> Overall, I feel this early draft could be still simplified to make the
> highest value use case (retrieving a list of media items) simpler. More
> advanced stuff could be pushed to v2. It might also be beneficial to align
> its design more closely with the other similar (DAP) APIs. Some details
> below.
> 
> Some additional comments re MediaObject interface:
> 
> Wouldn't we need a read-only uri/url/URL attribute to make this API useful
> for other than querying metadata of media items?
> 
> Perhaps MediaObject could inherit from File in which case we could
> simplify by dropping at least filename, type and mimeType attributes.
> Another option that might work would be to inherit from MediaFile of
> Capture API. Or we could even try to merge MediaObject and MediaFile into
> one and use that if it works out.

This is good point.
I prefer the former because other metadata information of MediaObject will be covered with MediaObjectProperties.
In the last f2f meeting in Prague, we agreed to make a consistency between core properties of media ontology from Media annotation WG and MediaObjectProperties of gallery API.

Best Regards,
Wonsuk.

> As agreed during today's telco, let's discuss how we should proceed with
> this API at F2F. Any comments on the list prior to that are of course
> welcome.
> 
> -Anssi
Received on Friday, 9 July 2010 15:56:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:45 UTC