- From: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:14:54 +0200
- To: ext fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: <public-device-apis@w3.org>, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
Hi fantasai, On 11.12.2012, at 2.14, ext fantasai wrote: > On 12/10/2012 06:18 AM, Anssi Kostiainen wrote: >> >> Does "directly" help here? > > Not much, no. > >> Let me know what would be the preferred language. Technically speaking, >> the media captured is not "live". > > Fair enough, but the intention is to capture it directly from the > device's environment, rather than directly from its memory. Right? Borrowing your language, does this make the prose clearer (also updated in the [ED]): [[ The capture attribute is a boolean attribute that, if specified, indicates that the capture of media directly from the device's environment using a media capture mechanism is preferred. ]] >>> Lastly, I wanted to check that, if you plan to extend the 'capture' >>> attribute in the future to determine which of multiple appropriate >>> devices to use (e.g. switching it to an enumeration), is the WebIDL >>> for it able to accommodate such an extension? Or does the type need >>> to be DOMString instead? >> >> I think we do not have such extension plans at this time. > > Indeed. But were you to have such a plan in the future (which, from > the discussions here, seems possible), would adopting the current > WebIDL prevent such an extension? If we'd make the capture attribute an enumerated attribute in the future, I think, we could define the missing value default state to map to the state that is defined by the current version of the spec. Thanks! -Anssi [ED] http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/ [diff] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2009/dap/camera/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.142;r2=1.143;f=h
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 08:15:45 UTC