- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 04:42:53 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
- Cc: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Tran, Dzung D wrote: > > Thanks for putting this together after exhaustive discussions on this > topic. I thought the <device> is a good start for a device selector. I > also like the fact that this would allow the UA to decide on the > appropriate UI for selection. > > Also on your comment about codec, Is there away you can negotiate the > formats between the client-server in similar to DLNA? Assuming we want to ensure that any client can communicate with any other client, at a minimum we would need at least one common codec. If we have one common codec, then there's no need for others. Thus, I don't see that we'd need format negotiation. > How do you envision the "type" attribute to evolve as new type of > devices become available? Hard to say. I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not. If we do think that using the same UI for, say, cameras and flash drives makes sense, then each type of device which uses a different kind of object would get a new type="" value, and then the .data attribute would return the relevant kind of object for the given type. So for example for type=media it would return a Stream, and for type="filesystem" it would return a FileSystem, or LocalFS, or whatever we call the filesystem object, etc. > How do you envision your work integrate with Device API WG's current > spec? Is there some hand off between your <device> selector and Device > API? Or not? Which spec did you have in mind? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2009 04:43:28 UTC