W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > December 2012

Re: [capture] making capture attribute boolean, the first stab

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:44:36 +0000
To: <nn.murthy@cmcltd.com>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1CB2E0B458B211478C85E11A404A2B2701845454@008-AM1MPN1-034.mgdnok.nokia.com>

 if the desired device were a scanner would it have a different accept MIME type?

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

On Nov 30, 2012, at 2:22 AM, ext NN Murthy wrote:

> It is interesting and addressing the issue we have to specify a device type
> such as "camera" or some other device type.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anssi Kostiainen [mailto:anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com] 
> Sent: 29 November 2012 21:17
> To: DAP public-device-apis@w3.org
> Subject: [capture] making capture attribute boolean, the first stab
> Hi,
> As per my ACTION-595, and as discussed on the yesterday's call, I started to
> look at how the HTML Media Capture spec might look like -- and what the
> implications might be -- if we'd make the capture attribute a boolean
> instead of an enumerated attribute.
> The short rationale is that we don't want to duplicate the information that
> is already expressed with the accept attribute. Also, given the feature is
> not yet widely deployed, we can probably still change things for better.
> I started writing the proposal in a mail first, but quickly found out it
> would be easier for everyone if I make an unofficial draft instead so that
> you'll get a proper diff etc.
> So I branched the spec, and reworked it. I also added new examples that
> should clarify how the revised spec would actually be used in both simple
> declarative-only scenario based on an HTML form, and in more advanced use
> cases involving scripting, such as upload via XHR, or drawing the captured
> image to a canvas on the client-side. I also wanted to clarify that
> uploading of the file is optional and that this feature is useful in
> client-side only scenarios too.
> The "new" unofficial version with a boolean capture is at: 
>  http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/unofficial.html
> The "old" Editor's Draft with an enumerated attribute is at:
>  http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/
> The diff:
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2009/dap/camera/unofficial.html.diff?r1=1.1;r2=1.2;
> f=h
> That said, I'm looking for feedback whether we should go the boolean route.
> Also suggestions how to make the boolean spec better are welcome. There are
> probably some rough edges as I drafted this one rather quickly.
> -Anssi
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> The information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments to it may
> contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended
> recipient, any dissemination, use, review, distribution, printing or copying
> of the information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments to it
> are strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please notify us by reply e-mail or directly to netsupport@cmcltd.com or
> telephone and immediately and permanently delete the message and any
> attachments. Thank you.
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scrubbed for your protection by SecureMX.
> For more information visit http://securemx.in
> _____________________________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 14:45:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:56 UTC