Re: Capture API question

Hi Dzung,


On 6/18/10 9:17 AM, Tran, Dzung D wrote:
> Yes, I think Arun's suggestion is fine and does aligned with some of the discussions going on in HTML5 WG.
>    

If such a thing exists, can you point me to a thread on either 
public-html or whatwg that discusses input type for camera invocation?  
I think the existing editor's draft covering the accept attribute [1] 
doesn't include Andrei's/Google's proposes enhancement for capture 
scenarios, and we should discuss these within HTML.  This should 
supplement DAP WG's interface specification.  If we don't have a such a 
thread, one of us should start one within HTML WG :-)

-- A*
[1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#attr-input-accept

> Dzung
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 01:15 AM
> To: arun@mozilla.com; Tran, Dzung D; Ingmar.Kliche; Ilkka.Oksanen@nokia.com
> Cc: Robin Berjon; Andrei Popescu; public-device-apis@w3.org; Brad Lassey; Doug Turner; khuey@mozilla.com
> Subject: Re: Capture API question
>
> 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.
>
> (moving the removed sections into a temporary level 2 spec would be
> fine, but we can always get them back from CVS, so I wouldn't
> necessarily worry about that now)
>
> Dom
>
>

Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 18:58:08 UTC