W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > December 2010

[whatwg] Bluetooth devices

From: Roger Hågensen <rescator@emsai.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:10:01 +0100
Message-ID: <4D07A4E9.5030006@emsai.net>
On 2010-12-14 16:12, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> On 12/13/10, Diogo Resende<dresende at thinkdigital.pt>  wrote:
>> Bjartur, I think you misunderstood our point. The idea is to have a way of
>> accessing this kind of devices (not necessarily by bt or usb). The
>> difference of this kind of devices is they're not keyboard, mics, headphones
>> or cameras.
>>
> I still don't grasp how that could be useful. Please provide an example.
> So you've got a non-kb, mouse, headphone or camera device, say a
> permanent storage drive. There's no use in directly accessing the
> device. If the app is a video stream filter, it can declare that it
> takes a video stream as an input. The app only cares about the stream
> being of MIME type "video" and potentially the encoding, not whether
> the stream comes from a disk, camera, ethernet or tape.
>
> Applications should not request keyboard access. They don't have to
> care about keycodes and keyboard layouts. That's what OSes are for.
> They request text. I fail to see what's so different about other
> devices. In fact, applications shouldn't have to account for the fact
> that there's some such thing as "devices" at all.

I have to agree with this, applications should be device agnostic.

If there is a particular type of devices that provides some form of data 
not currently supported
then the standards should be extended to support that, but the device 
handling should still be kept with the drivers,
if apps start talking directly (bypassing drivers/OS/Browsers/APIs) then 
that is just one huge bugfest waiting to happen.


-- 
Roger "Rescator" H?gensen.
Freelancer - http://www.EmSai.net/
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 09:10:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:02 UTC