- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:52:25 +0100
- To: "arun@mozilla.com" <arun@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "Ingmar.Kliche" <Ingmar.Kliche@telekom.de>, "Ilkka.Oksanen@nokia.com" <Ilkka.Oksanen@nokia.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.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>
Hi Arun, On Monday, June 21, 2010, Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 6/21/10 12:04 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote: > > On 21 Jun 2010, at 20:57, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > > > > 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 :-) > > > While we're on that one, what are the reasons to overload MIME syntax in @accept instead of adding a separate attribute that triggers a relevant sensor, when present? > > > > Minimizing attributes is nice; I don't think this is overloading. Rather, by including @accept in the first place, we may have all that we need. > > At the risk of bikeshedding, what is your proposal, and why is it better? > > Currently, it seems we have Andrei's proposal: > > <input type="file" accept="image/*;source=camera"> [1] > > > Upon reflection, I'm not sure if we even need the extra ";source=camera" part. Our implementation doesn't use it, and thus we have the existing use of @accept which seems sufficient. Andrei, do you think we actually need the additional qualifier? If so, why? > We needed to support the case of an app that wants to have a button that takes the user straight to the camera and another that lets the user pick an existing picture. It seemed to us that allowing the "source" param is a good solution as it's very easy to use and degrades well on UAs that don't support it. Thanks, Andrei > -- A* > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Jun/0106.html >
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 19:52:57 UTC