- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:21:00 +0100
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote: > Le vendredi 11 juin 2010 à 10:41 +0100, Andrei Popescu a écrit : >> > That said, we're very much interested in getting feedback — in >> > particular from implementors — on whether these additional features are >> > needed/useful in a v1, or if focusing on the form-based approach is more >> > cost-effective. >> >> On Android we are only implementing the form-based approach for now. >> This seems to work pretty well for the majority of the use cases we've >> encountered. > > Thanks, that's very useful to know; do you see a need for standardizing > anything addional about it, though? In other words: > * are you implementing or considering to implement the ViewFinder > interface, or are you only plugging access to the camera from the file > picker? No, we're not implementing the ViewFinder interface. We're just hooking the camera to the file picker. The only extension we're considering is to allow the author to invoke the camera directly using <input type="file" accept="image/*;source=camera"> UAs that don't know what "source=camera" is will just pop up a regular file picker. > *are you implementing an additional set of methods on top of the File > API for media objects? > Not for now but we are considering exposing the properties of the captured media (e.g. dimensions, duration, encoding, etc) using a subtype of File, like MediaFile in your spec. Thanks, Andrei
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 10:21:30 UTC