- From: Diogo Resende <dresende@thinkdigital.pt>
- Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 14:05:06 +0000
What about having the possibility to "use" a device other than a video? Maybe a specific hardware. I agree about not having a distinction on the hardware stack being used, but there should be a way for an app to be able to access an USBx/BT/FW device. -- Diogo On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 22:16 +1100, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 06:37:09 +0100, Saurabh Jain <saurabh at skjworld.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> We need access to Bluetooth devices using the Device element. > >> Without Bluetooth access some of the use cases, specially in the mobile > >> device domain would not be achievable. > > > > I think the question is why does it matter they are connected via Bluetooth? > > Should we really have a USB/Bluetooh/Firewire/etc. distinction at the web > > platform level? That seems like a bad thing. > > I agree. The Web developer should not have to worry about how the user > connects the device to their system. They should just be able to say: > give me the video (or audio or whatever) data from an appropriate > device. The type of data matters much more than the way in which it is > connected. > > Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 06:05:06 UTC