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

Re: PFWG comments on HTML Media Capture ( LC-2635)

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:54:51 -0400
Message-ID: <5059F8DB.20806@w3.org>
To: frederick.hirsch@nokia.com, public-device-apis@w3.org
CC: WAI Liaison <wai-liaison@w3.org>
Thank you for your response. We don't know how we all missed the
existing text, but see that it is there and meets our requirement. The
PFWG formally accepts your disposition of comment LC-2635.


frederick.hirsch@nokia.com wrote:
>  Dear Michael Cooper ,
> 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 Hazaël-Massieux
> W3C Staff Contacts
>  1. http://www.w3.org/mid/502ABF7F.1020705@w3.org
>  2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html-media-capture-20120712/
> =====
> Your comment on 5.1 Attributes capture of type DOMString:
>> The Protocols and Formats Working Group took a quick look at the HTML
>> Media Capture specification
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html-media-capture-20120712/. In a
>> teleconference discussion, minuted at
>> https://www.w3.org/2012/07/18-pf-minutes.html, we had the following
>> comments:
>> What happens if the requested device is not present on the system?
>> People with disabilities may have a different sub-set of devices
>> available than mainstream users. We suggest the specification state
>> explicitly that the user agent should fall back to a standard file
>> upload widget in this situation.
> Working Group Resolution (LC-2635):
> No change needed, addressed by the following normative prose:
> "The capture attribute's invalid value default and missing value default is
> the File Upload state."
> ----


Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 16:56:32 UTC

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