- From: James Salsman <jsalsman@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:57:36 -0700
- To: Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>, public-device-apis@w3.org
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 6:36 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman@gmail.com> wrote: > >... I [was] persuaded that the device element is > unnecessary, given recent announcements for the > accept="...;source=..." type specification proposed by Android and > Firefox developers. Does anyone have any reasons to the contrary? A device element with a type parameter would be useful when the HTML author is unaware of the target browsers' choice of specific elements such as embed, object, video, microphone, camera, camcorder etc. to control placement of, for example, audio volume and recording level controls, microphone visual feedback, video display viewports, camera and camcorder viewfinders, etc. for real-time device access, which does seem to be very reasonable to do in HTML instead of Flash. Use cases include teleconferencing, screen grabs (device type=image;source=desktop?), maybe shared whiteboards (device type=pointer;source=canvas-id producing coordinate streams and up/down codes?) Real-time camcorder upload has as compelling use case as buffered form-based input type=file accept=video;source=webcam does under lower bandwidth situations. People will want both, so I am not ready to write off the device element yet.
Received on Monday, 14 June 2010 06:58:04 UTC