W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > March 2011

[Bug 11958] [device] Use "peripheral" as the base generic device class keyword

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 09:20:39 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PvnfD-0006F3-PU@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11958

--- Comment #4 from Trevor Downs <cyberskull@mac.com> 2011-03-05 09:20:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I don't really understand how that would work for RS232 devices. If I have a
> serial port and I want to have a page send bits down the physical wire, how
> would a generic "peripheral" API work?
> 
> I think we might end up dropping things beyond cameras and microphones for now,
> since it's not clear how to handle them generically and handling them on a
> case-by-case basis is best done on a case-by-case basis, not wholesale.

I was basically trying to get around the messy business of managing device
connections and the connector types. My scan & upload web page should not care
if my scanner is attached via USB, FireWire or even RS-232. All it should care
about is seeing an object of type scanner and being able to fetch an image from
it.

As for the peripheral object itself, I meant it to be a starting point. It
could either be used as a base class or as some kind of capabilities
collection.

So let's say we get the capabilities object from the peripheral for an RS-232
collection. If the API support your desire to just send a bunch of bits down
the line, you could (in all likelyhood this wouldn't be included for security
reasons.)

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 5 March 2011 09:20:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 5 March 2011 09:21:21 GMT