W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Should (some of the) ContactField objects use URLs rather than free-form strings?

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:06:22 +0200
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: Device APIs and Policy Working Group WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1307545584.17453.3.camel@altocumulustier>
Le mercredi 08 juin 2011 à 14:26 +0200, Robin Berjon a écrit :
> >> For photos I think it's an easy win. The current draft has Base64 or
> >> URI. We could just have URI, indicating that if it's Base64 it can be
> >> a data: URI (and it could also be a blob: URI).
> > 
> > Photos are clearly my #1 request; having a field that can have both URLs
> > and binary-encoded-data-but-not-a-data-URL seems like non-sense.
> 
> For photos I certainly agree that it's a bug in the spec to have the two variants that we currently have.

As discussed during the call, let's start with fixing this for photos,
and leave the other fields alone for the time being. Based on
implementers/developers feedback, we can always revisit that later.

That would be the resolution for ISSUE-111.

Dom 
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 15:06:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:21 GMT