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

Re: [media-capture][LC] HTML Media Capture Comments ( LC-2637 LC-2638)

From: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:08:26 +0300
Cc: "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3D793145-F569-4DB8-95B4-CD8AFDE36A0C@nokia.com>
To: ext Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Hi Doug, All,

On 12.9.2012, at 7.57, ext Doug Schepers wrote:


>> Working Group Resolution (LC-2637):
>> No change needed:
>> The accept attribute takes precedence over the capture attribute as per the
>> spec. This means camcorder+audio would be the same as no capture attribute
>> is present if the implementation's video camera control is unable to
>> capture audio only. If the implementation's video camera control is able to
>> capture audio only (in addition to video), then camcorder+audio and
>> microphone+audio would yield similar results i.e. an audio file.
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2012Aug/0101.html
> Sorry, I'm not satisfied by this response.
> It ignores the central point I was making because of a flaw in my strawman syntax. I'll restate.
> The user may wish to select a different audio and video sources, for a variety of reasons, for example:
> * the videocamera might not have a microphone
> * the user may have a much better microphone than the one available with the videocamera
> * the user may wish to accept an audio input, or a video input, but not both, even if both are requested (for instance, I don't typically turn on my camera for skype calls, even if the other person has... but I may want to for specific calls); privacy shouldn't rely on local muting or blanking... it should be implicit in the request.
> You shouldn't assume that the videocamera source explicitly includes audio, or that the author wants to capture both video and audio (they may want just video, for privacy reasons), or that the user should assume that audio is included in any video request (again, for privacy reasons).
> Here is an improved example of what separate capture values might look like, with appropriate accept values:
> <input type="file"
>       accept="video/*, audio/*"
>       capture="camcorder,microphone">

Doug, thanks again for your thorough comment!

Would you be able to join one of our calls so we could hash this out? If that does not work out, we should make sure you can join us at the TPAC F2F latest.

See also Josh's related mail:


(I'll be offline for a while and will be back at the F2F.)

Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 12:08:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:55 UTC