- From: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:08:19 +0300
- To: ext Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, ext Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, 권기홍 Kwon <kihong.kwon@samsung.com>
- Cc: "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hi Doug, Adam, Kihong, On 12.9.2012, at 8.42, ext Doug Schepers wrote: [...] >> Working Group Resolution (LC-2639): >> No change in order to maintain consistency with Android 4.0 browser and >> Chrome for Android. > > Sorry, I'm not satisfied by this response. > > Anssi's response was: > [[ > Currently Android 4.0's stock browser and Chrome for Android implement the specification including the 'camcorder' keyword, see: > > http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/wiki/ImplementationStatus#HTML_Media_Capture > > Given this, changing the 'camcorder' keyword at this stage is likely not a good idea. > ]] > > What are the explicit reasons it's "not a good idea"? > > Implementations are lower in the priority of constituencies than authors. We will have many years and many authors long after the current versions of Android and Chrome are distant memories. Authors will be confused by the unintuitive and obscure "camcorder" for decades. > > I suggest you reconsider the name "camcorder" (which was a "bad idea" ^_^), and use "videocamera" instead. > > Android and Chrome can still accept "camcorder" as a vendor-specific keyword for legacy reasons, but authors should be discouraged from using it. Doug - Thanks you for your comments! The working group discussed this issue during yesterday's call, and weighted in pros and cons of aliasing i.e. making "videocamera" a synonym to "camcorder". Pros are much as you outline above. Cons that it complicates testing, and may hinder reaching interop. Adam, Kihong - What is your take on this issue as implementors? -Anssi
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 12:08:04 UTC