- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:15:04 -0700
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Cc: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
I like it. The grouping allows me to say that a particular camera
also has a microphone.
I still don't like the getPermissions idea in the slightest, but the
rest is good.
On 6 September 2013 01:27, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> I do wonder if getSources should have a slight extension, and if that would
> be sufficient?
>
> What if we returned:
>
> {
> { 1234, "video", "First camera"},
> { 2345, "audio", "Headset microphone"},
> { 3697, "audioOut", "Headset speakers"}
> }
>
> We could even extend this to say:
>
> {
> { 1234, "video", "First camera", group=42},
> { 7654, "audio", "First camera microphone", group=42},
> { 2345, "audio", "Headset microphone", group=17},
> { 3697, "audioOut", "Headset speakers", group=17}
> }
>
> to indicate that the headset microphone and speaker are part of the same
> device.
>
> In that case, the name "getSources" is clearly a misnomer; renaming it to
> "getDevices" should be No Big Deal.
>
> Since we already have rules for access to the labels of getSources, we can
> carry that through to output devices, not confusing the programmer further;
> if we add the getPermissions call so that you can get permission without
> opening a camera, we have the basis for letting the UA decide how much
> prompting is worth doing.
>
> Simplest solution that satisfies the stated requirements?
>
Received on Friday, 6 September 2013 17:15:32 UTC