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

Re: Direction: Constraints

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 13:03:39 -0600
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-Id: <14F22C16-C676-41E7-AA66-9935A5DFDA3C@iii.ca>
To: Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>

On May 15, 2012, at 3:46 AM, Rich Tibbett wrote:

> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> Given the debates we've had about the constraints/capabilities
>> functionality, the
>> clear need many see for it, and the proposal that Dan Burnett posted
>> to the mailing list on April 23 and the debate that has followed it,
>> the Chairs declare that we have a reasonable consensus that moving
>> forward with this specification is the right thing to do.
>> The chairs are therefore asking the editors to incorporate this
>> proposal in the current documents.
>> Of course, suggestions for improvements to this API are always welcome.
> Opera cannot integrate this in to our current products since we are not yet pursuing a trusted environment model for the web on which this proposal heavily relies.

First - this makes no sense to me in two different ways - the constraints proposal does not rely on a trusted environment. Second, we might mean different things by a trusted environment but I read this to say you are going to allow access to the camera with no user authorization. I seriously doubt this is what you mean so I suspect what we should be  talking about is what sort of trust we are is needed for a minimal implementation.

> The upshot of this is that we will not be able to claim conformance to the getUserMedia specification if this is added.

> This and the fact that there is a lot of hidden complexity and a lot of unresolved issues in this proposal

Really? more complex than what? This is the problem: many of us can not figure out what it is you want - all we know if you don't like anything that is proposed. So what is it exactly that you think this is more complex than. And what requirements do you think we need to meet - for example, most the people I have talked to think that we need to be able to indicate some hints about the desired resolution of image capture. 

> is likely to significantly delay delivery of the core getUserMedia specification in the standards process.
> It would be preferable if trusted environment features are pursued in a separate specifcation for now and the open issues on this proposal, of which there are many, are pursued orthogonally to the main task of nailing down the core features of the getUserMedia specification.
> - Rich
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 19:04:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:09 UTC