- From: Rob Manson <roBman@buildAR.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 05:54:17 +1100
- To: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com>
- CC: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "Hu, Ningxin" <ningxin.hu@intel.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Hi Giri. Anssi, my point was simply that the discussion that lead to ImageCapture using a standalone PhotoSettings dictionary was back in 2012. A lot has developed since then. As far as I'm aware (and I'd love to know if this is not the case as we're depending upon it for our work) using the Constrainable Pattern is the current preferred model. If this is the case then moving ImageCapture from using a PhotoSettings dictionary to using a Settings partial dictionary seems like a relatively small impact - especially since this hasn't had any implementations yet. That way ImageCapture just extends the common model instead of forging a new API structure. Thoughts? roBman On 30/03/15 11:07 PM, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote: > >> On 27 Mar 2015, at 19:04, Mandyam, Giridhar <mandyam@quicinc.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Please let me know if you'd like me to create a PR with the >>> proposed changes to be reviewed or whether you'd like to update >>> the spec yourself. Once the proposed changes have landed we'd >>> update the mediacapture-depth to reuse mediacapture-image for >>> [ImageCapture]Settings. >> >> Please use the PR route. This way there is a record of who >> suggested changes and how they are incorporated in the spec. > > Ok. > > Rob has another proposal cooking, so before we proceed with the PR, I > suggest we discuss Rob's idea on the list and gauge rough consensus. > > Rob - please share your proposal with the list when you've recovered > from your recent traveling spree :-) > > Thanks, > > -Anssi > >
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 18:54:46 UTC