- From: Tran, Dzung D <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:03:05 -0800
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
>> 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?
>
I was thinking of the current work with the Capture APIs as: http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/
I think in one of the example from Andrei Popescu you could handle the non-streaming capture as:
<device type="mediaFile" onchange="update(this.data)">
function update(file) { // file is an object that implements interface File
}
So, is there a need for the Capture APIs?
Thanks
Dzung Tran
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 08:43 PM
To: Tran, Dzung D
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: RE: <device> proposal (for video conferencing, etc)
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 05:03:43 UTC