Re: [capture] A couple of editorial comments

Hi Tobie

I should explain the text I added, see inline. Sorry for the delay in responding - I was on vacation last week.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Nov 21, 2012, at 7:38 AM, ext Tobie Langel wrote:

> Hi Anssi,
> 
> 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):
> 
> - 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).

The primary purpose is to upload immediately captured content. Why not use the FileAPI directly otherwise?

That said, we should not make changes which lose the primary purpose though we could clarify that file upload is also possible 


> 
> - 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."


What is not clear? It says that using forms one can upload material captured by device mechanisms but cannot have fine grained control like handling tracks etc.


> 
> 
> - 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).

The advantage over getUserMedia is the purported relative simplicity of using a form to select a device capture without understanding deeper media capture possibilities or having to manage them.
> 
> Best,
> 
> --tobie
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 19:21:41 UTC