Re: [capture] A couple of editorial comments

Hi Tobie,

On 21.11.2012, at 14.38, ext Tobie Langel wrote:

> A couple of editorial comments (not sure if there's still a window of
> opportunity for changes, feel free to disregard if that isn't the case):

I think it should not be too late for editorial comments.

> - The wording in the abstract seems to imply HTML Media Capture is only
> useful to immediately upload captured content. It might be worth
> mentioning it gives the document access to the capture content through the
> File API which allows client-side manipulation and storing (in IndexedDB).

It sounds like you'd have a concrete proposal in mind how to rephrase this. Feel free to send it my way.

> - I am not sure I fully understand the sentence "These form extensions
> enable the upload of still images, video, and audio directly from a device
> capture mechanism but capture the default offered by the device, providing
> limited control over what is captured."

This was added in the latest round of edits to address LC comments, contributed by Frederick. I'll let him clarify (he's on vacation this week).

> - It would be great to mention some use cases in there (such as being able
> to take a picture using a mobile phone) and what advantages it offers over
> getUserMedia (e.g. For pictures, the implementor can implement a hardware
> shutter button, offer native image filtering, cropping, save to gallery,
> etc., none of which can be done with getUserMedia).

Once again, it sounds like you have great use cases thought out. Let me hear them so we can add them to the spec :)

Thanks for carefully reviewing the spec again!

-Anssi

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 13:30:37 UTC