- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:37:12 +0100
- To: "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org, "Ben Murdoch" <benm@google.com>
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:22:32 +0100, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com> wrote: > One reason for this separation is that we want to leave the <input> > tag for form submission. This is all fine but, at the same time, there > are use cases where an application may want a static image from the > camera but may not want to submit any form. So, in such a case, we are > after all misusing the <input> tag? I do not think we should view it that way. Nowadays there are many applications that use <input> without the associated submission semantics it gets when embedded in <form>. The difference with <device> here is that you cannot meaningfully integrate it with the <form> submission model so it makes sense to completely separate it. > If I understand the example correctly, the video element will show the > output of the user's camera (i.e. act as an embedded camera viewport). > To be able to implement video chat, we also need a way to see the > remote party, so we need a way to send the Stream over to some server. > I think we should specify the mechanism for doing that (e.g. > WebSockets::send(Stream stream)). I believe this is the plan yes, if the general proposal can be made to work. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2009 13:38:07 UTC