- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:19:16 +0100
- To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: "arun@mozilla.com" <arun@mozilla.com>, "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 Thomas, On Monday, June 21, 2010, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> wrote: > On 21 Jun 2010, at 21:22, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > >>> 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. > > I agree on the minimization goal. But Andrei's proposal adds a pseudo MIME parameter in order to save an HTML parameter. That sounds weird. > >> At the risk of bikeshedding, what is your proposal, and why is it better? > > Add "capture" as an attribute to "input" (I thought of 'source', but that's much too close to 'src' for comfort). Same values as for Andrei's pseudo-attribute. > > Better because: > - doesn't add yet another micro syntax (including pseudo-attribute notion) to HTML > - the "capture" parameter is easily available within the DOM > - clean fall-back for user agents that might do something useful with the current accept parameter (does anybody actually use it right now?) > We did think about adding an attribute but considered that the source param is nicer because of the same reason as the one Arun mentioned. Thanks, Andrei >> Currently, it seems we have Andrei's proposal: >> >> <input type="file" accept="image/*;source=camera"> [1] > > <input type="file" accept="image/*" capture="camera"> > >> 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? > > > (Good question; I wouldn't mind dropping the qualifier.) > >
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 20:19:47 UTC