- From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:44:47 +0200
- To: <dom@w3.org>
- CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <arun@mozilla.com>, <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>, <Ingmar.Kliche@telekom.de>, <Ilkka.Oksanen@nokia.com>, <robin@robineko.com>, <andreip@google.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>, <blassey@mozilla.com>, <dougt@mozilla.com>, <khuey@mozilla.com>
I'm not sure we have WG agreement of removing ViewFinder material to v2, see ilkka's email. Perhaps organize into a separate section of the document? regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Jun 18, 2010, at 4:14 AM, ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: > Le mercredi 16 juin 2010 à 17:38 -0700, Arun Ranganathan a écrit : >> Questions: >> >> * Could we proceed with a web model that only looks at File API, >> MediaFile (and FormatData) as level 1 for capturing stills, short >> videos, and audios? The level 1 specification should provide guidance >> on what the invocation syntax in HTML is for these input and capture >> devices. We should discuss this in HTML5 via relevant public-html >> threads, if not already spawned. >> * Could we flesh out use cases for ViewFinder and introduce it later? >> I can see it as useful for other streaming use cases. >> * There could be, as Robin proposes, an API for what he's called the >> "Trusted" scenarios (including installable apps). It could layer >> gracefully on top of level 1 or so. > > This sounds like a good plan to me, at least. Dzung, Ingmar, Ilkka, > would one of you mind having a stab at re-formulating the Capture API > into what Arun describes as Level 1 above? > This would mean scraping 1.1, 3.1, 3.4 to 3.14, and massaging the > remaining into a coherent set. > > (moving the removed sections into a temporary level 2 spec would be > fine, but we can always get them back from CVS, so I wouldn't > necessarily worry about that now) > > Dom > > >
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 18:46:45 UTC