- From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:51:24 -0700
- To: Ilkka Oksanen <Ilkka.Oksanen@nokia.com>
- CC: ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>, "Ingmar.Kliche" <Ingmar.Kliche@telekom.de>, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, Brad Lassey <blassey@mozilla.com>, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>, "khuey@mozilla.com" <khuey@mozilla.com>
Greetings Ikka, On 6/21/10 8:14 AM, Ilkka Oksanen wrote: > On 18.06.10 11:14, ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: >> Le mercredi 16 juin 2010 à 17:38 -0700, Arun Ranganathan a écrit : >> > Questions: >> > >> > * Could we proceed with a web model that only looks at File API, >> > MediaFile (and FormatData) as level 1 for capturing stills, short >> > videos, and audios? The level 1 specification should provide >> > guidance on what the invocation syntax in HTML is for these input >> > and capture devices. We should discuss this in HTML5 via relevant >> > public-html threads, if not already spawned. * Could we flesh out >> > use cases for ViewFinder and introduce it later? I can see it as >> > useful for other streaming use cases. * There could be, as Robin >> > proposes, an API for what he's called the "Trusted" scenarios >> > (including installable apps). It could layer gracefully on top of >> > level 1 or so. >> >> This sounds like a good plan to me, at least. Dzung, Ingmar, Ilkka, >> would one of you mind having a stab at re-formulating the Capture >> API into what Arun describes as Level 1 above? This would mean >> scraping 1.1, 3.1, 3.4 to 3.14, and massaging the remaining into a >> coherent set. >> > > I partially agree. ViewFinder interface was added to the API to > address the feedback we received earlier. I have no problems removing > it if there is now consensus that it can go to v2. Can you point me to a reference to this feedback? I'd like to learn more about the use cases behind ViewFinder. I think FileList should only return a File objects, and not scriptable camera controls. Right now, by having ViewFinder inherit from File (and thus, Blob as well) we have a scriptable object for camera controls and an asynchronously readable Blob with File metadata. This doesn't seem right to me. > I'm not still sure if it is reasonable to completely delete the > programmatic way to initiate the capture process. Only two capture > options exist currently but I expect that there will be need to add > more soon. JavaScript API enables better extendability and I think > therefore it should be part of the spec from the initial version. I think programmatic ways to initiate the capture process can be added in a separate level; my recommendation is v2, but that v1 stays as simple as possible and as accurate as possible to current implementation plans in browsers, as evidenced by both Chrome and Firefox. -- A*
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 18:51:58 UTC