W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > November 2009

Re: Camera/Caputre API (was: DAP Roadmap, priorities)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:30:02 +0000 (UTC)
To: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
Cc: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Ingmar.Kliche@telekom.de, public-device-apis@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0911240529030.9450@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Robin Berjon wrote:
> The reason I'm interested in looking at (2) is because I'm concerned 
> that we may be trying to pile too much onto <input>  we could, after 
> all, have had <input type='location'>. If the geolocation model works, 
> we should build on it. This doesn't prevent the <input>-based access  
> in fact for the capture API I like it very much because it makes a lot 
> of sense semantically here. We can do both  so long as we build on 
> existing models I feel rather safe that we're not doing weird stuff and 
> that we're benefitting from improvements that can be made to other parts 
> of the stack that rely on these approaches.

We tried <input type=location> before using an async API. It wasn't quite 
the right fit for various reasons (in particular, it's not clear what the 
user interaction would be -- there's no location to select, generally, 
it's just a recurring event when the user moved).

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 05:30:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:13 UTC