W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > August 2012

RE: Proposal for Still Image Capture

From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:02:51 +0000
To: "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9768D477C67135458BF978A45BCF9B3838426150@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
> From: Mandyam, Giridhar [mailto:mandyam@quicinc.com]
> 
> Hello All,
> Since the Recording API is on the agenda for the upcoming telco, I'd like to
> put forward for the group the enclosed proposal for still image capture.  The
> "Simple image capture API" is still listed on the Wiki under Open Items.
> 
> Please note the following:
> 1. This proposal has commonalities to the Camera API proposed on
> Qualcomm's developer website:
> https://developer.qualcomm.com/docs/html5/api/camera.html.
> 2.  The "Feature Keys" listed in the enclosed doc are not defined in the doc
> itself.  Please refer to the above website for a further breakdown of the
> proposed individual values for the keys and if applicable the returned values
> if a feature key is set.
> 
> I look forward to feedback.

I had to chuckle at your example code use of constraints:

navigator.getUserMedia({video:{mandatory:{minHeight:300,minWid th:600,cameraSelect:'front'}}, gotStream, noStream);

Naturally, setting a mandatory constraint for a 'front' camera, according to your own document, would limit every device for which the front/back-ness of a camera could not be determined. This is a pretty innocent example, but underscores my point about easily over-constraining getUserMedia. An implementation of this would probably have to tweak the cameraSelect constraint to say that "unknown" was the same as whatever mandatory constraint was requested :) I just don't want to go there.
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 21:03:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:11 UTC