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

Re: Capture API question

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:04:05 +0200
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "Ingmar.Kliche" <Ingmar.Kliche@telekom.de>, "Ilkka.Oksanen@nokia.com" <Ilkka.Oksanen@nokia.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, Brad Lassey <blassey@mozilla.com>, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>, "khuey@mozilla.com" <khuey@mozilla.com>
Message-Id: <D921F31C-8EF2-4637-938F-7237A6E18BF9@w3.org>
To: arun@mozilla.com
On 21 Jun 2010, at 20:57, Arun Ranganathan wrote:

> Hi Dzung,
> 
> 
> On 6/18/10 9:17 AM, Tran, Dzung D wrote:
>> Yes, I think Arun's suggestion is fine and does aligned with some of the discussions going on in HTML5 WG.
>>   
> 
> If such a thing exists, can you point me to a thread on either public-html or whatwg that discusses input type for camera invocation?  I think the existing editor's draft covering the accept attribute [1] doesn't include Andrei's/Google's proposes enhancement for capture scenarios, and we should discuss these within HTML.  This should supplement DAP WG's interface specification.  If we don't have a such a thread, one of us should start one within HTML WG :-)

While we're on that one, what are the reasons to overload MIME syntax in @accept instead of adding a separate attribute that triggers a relevant sensor, when present?


> -- A*
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#attr-input-accept
> 
>> Dzung
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org]
>> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 01:15 AM
>> To: arun@mozilla.com; Tran, Dzung D; Ingmar.Kliche; Ilkka.Oksanen@nokia.com
>> Cc: Robin Berjon; Andrei Popescu; public-device-apis@w3.org; Brad Lassey; Doug Turner; khuey@mozilla.com
>> Subject: Re: Capture API question
>> 
>> 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 19:04:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:10 GMT