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

Re: Capture API question

From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:52:25 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikVYvtlFirNPjTQsZuc3nMxb_I0L67IXChyh59V@mail.gmail.com>
To: "arun@mozilla.com" <arun@mozilla.com>
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>, "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>
Hi Arun,

On Monday, June 21, 2010, Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 6/21/10 12:04 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> Minimizing attributes is nice; I don't think this is overloading. Rather, by including @accept in the first place, we may have all that we need.
>
> At the risk of bikeshedding, what is your proposal, and why is it better?
>
> Currently, it seems we have Andrei's proposal:
>
> <input type="file" accept="image/*;source=camera">  [1]
>
>
> Upon reflection, I'm not sure if we even need the extra ";source=camera" part.  Our implementation doesn't use it, and thus we have the existing use of @accept which seems sufficient.  Andrei, do you think we actually need the additional qualifier?  If so, why?
>

We needed to support the case of an app that wants to have a button
that takes the user straight to the camera and another that lets the
user pick an existing picture. It seemed to us that allowing the
"source" param is a good solution as it's very easy to use and
degrades well on UAs that don't support it.

Thanks,
Andrei



> -- A*
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jun/0106.html
>
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 19:52:57 GMT

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