- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:25:12 +0200
- To: public-device-apis@w3.org
Le mercredi 01 septembre 2010 à 21:37 +0200, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com a écrit : > This is a call for consensus to see if there are any objections to publishing the Media Capture API as a FPWD. > > The draft can be read at: > http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/Overview-API.html +1 on publishing it. Given its dependency on some of the changes that were brought to the html-media-capture editors draft, I would suggest publishing along a new version of that document as well. A few comments that can be addressed before or after publication (I've already made mostly editorial modifications directly in the text) since I don't think they affect the scope of the document: • the example in the intro refers to "err.message" but there is no message attribute in the CaptureError interface; • the privacy and security section talks about "authenticated" operations — I think this should talk about obtaining user consent instead • there is a "MUST" in a note in that same section; if we really mean it as a MUST (of which I'm not entirely convinced), the said text should be outside of the NOTE • 3.1 reads "Objects implementing the NavigatorDevice interface … provide access to the Capture interface through the Capture interface"; there is no reference to what NavigatorDevice is; and providing "access to the Capture interface through the Capture interface" doesn't make sense • I don't understand "An instance of Capture would be then obtained by using binding-specific casting methods on an instance of NavigatorDevice." • given that supported*Formats is directly under navigator.device, I wonder if we're not creating ambiguity in what "supported" means (it could be "supported" for viewing vs creating vs streaming, etc) • I don't think the algorithms for the capture*() methods should talk about "native audio recorder/camera application"; after all, we have no reason to forbid browsers to start their own thing, possibly integrated in the browser viewport if they feel like it; we should probably mention the possibility of using an external app, but not mandate it • is it an error condition when the recording application exits without any mediafile (e.g. the user chose not to send any file eventually)? or does it trigger a success callback with an empty array? this might be what "the user exited the application prematurely" refers to, but that's not very clear (to me at least) • the algorithms for captureVideo and captureAudio should also reference the duration parameter (in addition to maxNumberOfMediaFiles) • maxNumberOfMediaFiles is very long; I hope we can find a better name • how do you allow a user to take as many pictures as she wants? as long video/audio as she wants? in other words, how should infinity be represented for maxNumberOfMediaFiles and duration? What happens when they're set to 0? a negative number for duration? Dom
Received on Thursday, 2 September 2010 08:25:20 UTC