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

Re: [media-capture][LC] HTML Media Capture Comments ( LC-2639)

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:42:40 +0200
Message-ID: <505020D0.5070508@w3.org>
To: frederick.hirsch@nokia.com
CC: public-device-apis@w3.org
Hi, Device APIs WG-

On 9/11/12 10:00 PM, frederick.hirsch@nokia.com wrote:
>   Dear Doug Schepers ,
>
> The Device APIs Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent [1] on the
> Last Call Working Draft [2] of the HTML Media Capture published on 12 Jul
> 2012. Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to
> send us comments!
>
> The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.
>
> Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
> public-device-apis@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 18 September
> 2012. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
> solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a
> consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a
> formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the
> transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation
> Track.
>
> Thanks,
>
> For the Device APIs Working Group,
> Dave Raggett
> Dominique Hazaƫl-Massieux
> W3C Staff Contacts
>
>   1. http://www.w3.org/mid/4FFF382B.70204@w3.org
>   2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html-media-capture-20120712/
>
>
> =====
>
> Your comment on 5.1 Attributes capture of type DOMString:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html-media-capture-20120712/#attributes
>>
>> Why 'camcorder' instead of 'videocamera'? I think 'videocamera' would be
>>
>> more intuitive for non-native speakers.
>
>
> Working Group Resolution (LC-2639):
> No change in order to maintain consistency with Android 4.0 browser and
> Chrome for Android.

Sorry, I'm not satisfied by this response.

Anssi's response was:
[[
Currently Android 4.0's stock browser and Chrome for Android implement 
the specification including the 'camcorder' keyword, see:

   http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/wiki/ImplementationStatus#HTML_Media_Capture

Given this, changing the 'camcorder' keyword at this stage is likely not 
a good idea.
]]

What are the explicit reasons it's "not a good idea"?

Implementations are lower in the priority of constituencies than 
authors.  We will have many years and many authors long after the 
current versions of Android and Chrome are distant memories. Authors 
will be confused by the unintuitive and obscure "camcorder" for decades.

I suggest you reconsider the name "camcorder" (which was a "bad idea" 
^_^), and use "videocamera" instead.

Android and Chrome can still accept "camcorder" as a vendor-specific 
keyword for legacy reasons, but authors should be discouraged from using it.


<meta>
Any change in the spec will require changes in the implementations; 
implementers know this.  What is the point of having an LC if nothing 
can be changed? Perhaps you should have done your LC sooner?

I'm not unsympathetic to your situation, but it doesn't seem a tenable 
practice.
</meta>

Regards-
-Doug
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 05:42:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 September 2012 05:42:52 GMT