- From: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 12:59:12 +0100
- To: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>
- Cc: "Ilkka Oksanen" <Ilkka.Oksanen@nokia.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Dec 4, 2009, at 12:33 , Arve Bersvendsen wrote: > On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:26:09 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com> wrote: >> The code is simple enough, and typical enough, but my concern is whether this approach can scale to controlling the video. So in the above I've embedded the captured video in the page, but this assumes that it's already been recorded. How do I grow that into something that could stream it (streaming is hard enough already, I'm not sure how it marries to the form metaphor)? How do I grow that into something using which I could control the capture from within the document? > > If the intent is actually grabbing the video stream, and embedding it in content, here is my proposal: > > <object src="protocol:identifier/for/some/camera/"> > <param name="aperture-value" value="1.4" /> > <param name="shutter-speed" value="1/30" /> > </object> > > Implement File and FileReader on the <object> interface. > > <object> (Or even <video>) could implement an interface for setting properties on the device Just as a reality check, do you really think that a solution involving both <object> and a new URI scheme is simpler and more elegant than one relying on APIs and <video>? Say contrasted to the API in http://www.w3.org/mid/AB072C1D-8194-45A8-968E-5E44D3B8F96E@robineko.com for instance? -- Robin Berjon robineko — hired gun, higher standards http://robineko.com/
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 11:59:49 UTC