W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Questions about the MediaStream Image Capture API proposal

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 09:05:58 +0200
Message-ID: <51A6FA56.6030705@ericsson.com>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 2013-05-30 08:41, Rob Manson wrote:
> Hi Giri (or Stefan/Harald where relevant),
>
> just wondering if this API is being pursued by the Media Capture Task
> Force?  This link (http://www.w3.org/TR/image-capture/) at the top of
> the document throws a 404 and I couldn't find any links to it except in
> the list thread where it was proposed.

It is actively being pursued by the Media Capture TF. I think the reason 
for the link to be broken is that the document has not yet become a 
Public WD (it is an Editor's draft). At the last teleconf it was decided 
that some updates should be made to the Editor's draft, and a call for 
consensus to make it a First Public WD would then be issued.

Stefan

>
> There was also some feedback in the thread of the original proposal
> about splitting out settings.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2013Feb/0082.html
>
> I wondered if this was happening?
>
> I also have a few other questions about this document.
>
> 2.2 Methods -> getFrame point 2. mentions "{Note: Unlike frameGrabber(),
> getFrame() returns data only once upon being invoked.}".  But there's no
> reference to frameGrabber() anywhere else. Has this been removed?  This
> distinction of one-off versus looping still seems very relevant to me.
>
> If frameGrabber() did exist, would you be able to replace the
> "pictureDevice.getFrame();" line in Example 2 and then processFrame(e)
> would just be called when every new frame arrives?
>
> In Example 1, wouldn't pictureDevice.onphotosettingschange's function
> never be called because the pictureDevice.setOptions() call had already
> happened before this was defined?
>
> There's also a small typo - the table in 2.2 Methods -> setOptions() has
> some broken unicode chars in them e.g. ✔
>
> roBman
>
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2013 07:06:29 UTC

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