- From: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:22:17 +0100
- To: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)" <BS3131@att.com>, public-device-apis@w3.org
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:10:10 +0100, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) <BS3131@att.com> wrote: > Hi Arve, > Re your responses to my comments: > > " a user agent can probably be configured to allow the synthetication of > said event. I view this largely > as an implementation detail, not as something subject for a spec." > [bryan] how then do we ensure interoperability, if it's not in a spec? > Do I have to code my app for the specific implementation approach of the > web runtime? That would not be good. Synthesizing the event (in practice, this involves invoking .click() on the element) is already covered by other specifications (DOM Level 2 Events, HTML5, DOM3 Events). You're not going to get "interoperability" on a capture API anyhow: On the open web, browser vendors are highly unlikely to allow unattended access to security-sensitive devices such as camera or microphone - just like they don't allow unattended access to the filesystem. In the context of installed/installable web applications, where a trust decision has been made on a permanent basis, through some means, it is simply a matter of allowing synthetic clicks instead of not allowing them. > " As for controlling which camera <input> would choose: I'm pretty sure > a microdata approach would easily solve this " > [bryan] Again, how/where would we define the use of the microdata > normatively, to ensure interoperability? The microdata approach would of course have to be specified. -- Arve Bersvendsen Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 17:23:00 UTC