W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > April 2013

Re: VideoStreamTrack: takePhoto()

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 10:27:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78h64Z38H7ATL-h=GXRiAb897u0D=__P2RvLKa4ey8GTJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> Fully agreed. Your task is to convince us that the idea has technical merit.
> You've described the idea itself. It's a programming pattern that has both
> supporters and detractors in other contexts - so it's not an obvious
> decision for this WG, and it involves matters in which this WG does not hold
> a significant amount of expertise. So we're looking for other support for
> the idea.

Could you point me to the detractors?


> One possible argument that an idea has technical merit is that other people
> have put it into their specification, implemented it into their products,
> shipped software, and have had people use it successfully.
>
> Another possible argument is that other people of known competence have
> looked carefully at it and documented a decision that they are going to use
> it because they judge that it has technical merit.
>
> So far, all we have is your claim that other people are going to use it.

It's technically superior due to the ability to compose and providing
a consistent programming experience (rather than events one time and
callbacks another time as you have now, which you have not justified
in any way).

Getting WebApps or the TAG to make a formal stance on this matter
would be such an ancient way to address this. If you just explained
what you think is wrong rather than trying to make me give you an
argument from authority that would be so much better.


--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 09:27:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:24:40 UTC