Comparing capture* API vs <input type="file" accept="...">


Arve raised yesterday during the call a notion that had been raised
before: that instead of defining a new interface to grant access to the
capture devices, we could rely on <input type="file"> with an accept
attribute set to "video/*", "image/*" or "audio/*"; we would then rely
(presumably) on a specialized File interface to get access to some
additional metadata (presumably spatial and time dimensions).

Some people have voiced concerns about that approach; in the hope of
facilitating the discussion on this, I have tried to summarize what I
have understood of the pros and cons of both approach (completed with a
variant of the <input type="file">, <input type="photo">) on the wiki:

I hope this can help making progress in that discussion.

As always, feedback on and additions to this comparison are welcome.


Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 09:46:21 UTC