W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2010

Re: Media Capture

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:44:49 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=T+tBOe=1do5VbqZe1S1EXV4g+SZKBGyT0O+=d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> Option 1)
> This is the option that's in the draft, as well as the one that's implemented in Android. Each media type (or pseudo-media type) in the accept list can take a ;capture={camera,microphone,etc} parameter. That changes the syntax, and requires a processing model tweak to ignore other parameters (since it's unlikely much useful can be done with them) but the implementation feedback from Google is that that's pretty much nothing. It's tempting to go with this if only because it's implemented already. However, it's probably not widely implemented enough yet that it's too late to change tack.
>
> Option 2)
> Some people have voiced concerns that this would be better captured (HA!) by adding a capture attribute with said values to the input element. My understanding is that the thinking here is that this is less of a hack, and also less intrusive to HTML since adding an attribute is actually a smaller and more easily ignored modification than changing the syntax of a value.

Option 2, definitely.  I'm somewhat against complex microsyntaxes in
general, and I've never liked that particular microsyntax in specific.
 A @capture attribute is *much* clearer and easier to use.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 9 December 2010 00:45:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:17 GMT