W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > May 2014

[Bug 25777] Capabilities seem under specified

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 15:01:45 +0000
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-25777-5753-gpNBLzTqyH@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

1jhbarnett@gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |1jhbarnett@gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from 1jhbarnett@gmail.com ---
I'm assuming that you mean that the camera supports only 640x480 and 800x600. 
There are two problems here:
1. Width and height are separate capabilities, but this example requires the
values to be tied (the way they can in constraint application), so that you
can't ask for 640x600 or 800x480.
2. The IDL defines width and height as ranges, not lists of individual values.

If most cameras are restricted in this way, we could introduce a 'Size'
property with an enumerated set of values, but to handle this in the general
case (where a) some cameras have ranges for 'width' and 'height' whereas others
have only specific values and b) the ranges and values may be tied to each
other) the syntax would have to be at least as complicated as that for

One thing to do is to say that wherever a property is defined as a range, the
UA can enter a list  of values.  So the camera would have Capability 'width'=
"480, 600" and 'height'="640,800".  (A list of values is a kind of range.) 
This wouldn't capture the interdependency of the values, but maybe apps will
just have to live with the fact that Capabilities may indicate a superset of
what the UA can actually do.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 18 May 2014 15:01:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:27 UTC