Re: [capture] A couple of editorial comments

On 11/21/12 2:30 PM, "Anssi Kostiainen" <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com> wrote:

>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!

Noted.

I'll send you text asap.

--tobie

Received on Thursday, 22 November 2012 10:12:23 UTC