Re: <device> proposal (for video conferencing, etc)

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:22:32 +0100, Andrei Popescu <> 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.

Indeed. The problem is that this requires a chosen codec, and we don't 
have one. That's why I stopped where I did.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2009 16:37:14 UTC