- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:56:27 +0100
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 11/18/2013 09:36 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> On 11/17/13 11:40 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> Done: If I'm doing an application whose only purpose is analyzing houses
>> for isolation hotspots, getting a non-thermal camera will just mean that
>> I have to make code paths to deal with "this is a camera, but the data
>> I'm getting from it is completely nonsensical". I don't want to spend
>> time doing that.
>
> I'm not saying you have to. One line is all it takes:
>
> if (!browser.getSupportedConstraints().hasOwnProperty("thermal"))
> return false;
>
> This is an app decision.
By the same token, why should this developer (who write apps for thermal
cameras only) be the one to do that, and not the one who can live with a
visible-light camera when his application is written for a thermal?
The getSupportedConstraints() actually makes things a lot easier when
dealing with constraints that the browser may or may not know, no matter
whether the WG eventually agrees with me or with Jan-Ivar.
But I think I'll stop posting on this subject. Let's hear from others.
--
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 20:56:55 UTC