RE: Image Capture Proposal

Yes, I was talking about the Constrainable interface.  I think it's fine if it goes into gUM.  I just want to make sure that we don't lose track of it, since I want to refer to it from the recording spec.

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Bergkvist [mailto:adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:03 AM
To: Travis Leithead
Cc: Jim Barnett; Stefan Håkansson LK; public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: Re: Image Capture Proposal

I get the feeling that you guys (Jim and Travis) are talking about different interfaces here. Jim, you mean the "Constrainable" interface right? I talked to Dan about that and he wanted to get the first version of the Settings proposal in before we started to change stuff. Since the functionality that will go into the "Constrainable" interface is being incorporated into the Media Capture document, and all specs that would want to use it is dependent on that document, I think it should just be extracted from it's current interface and put into a section of its own in the same document.

/Adam

On 2013-02-20 02:08, Travis Leithead wrote:
> I think we either start a new unique document for it, or we add it as 
> a new unique section to the recording API spec, slightly stretching 
> its scope. I think I prefer the latter option since I envision the 
> recording and image capture proposals to move to Rec at roughly the 
> same pace (e.g., implementations would probably want to implement them 
> both at the same time?)
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Barnett [mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 6:23 AM
>> To: Stefan Håkansson LK; public-media-capture@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Image Capture Proposal
>>
>> I'd be happy to work on this interface.  Where would it go?

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 13:02:47 UTC