- From: Roger Hågensen <rescator@emsai.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 01:02:30 +0100
On 2010-12-15 18:02, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius > <svartman95 at gmail.com> wrote: >> I still don't grasp how that could be useful. Please provide an example. >> So you've got a non-kb, mouse, headphone or camera device, say a >> permanent storage drive. > No, not something so general-purpose. Say it's some type of device > where the market is so small that standardization is infeasible -- > maybe it's only useful in a particular specialty, and there are only > one or two low-volume vendors. Or maybe it's some new type of device > where the market is uncertain and nothing has been standardized yet. > Given that there's no standard high-level way to interact with the > device, it might be desirable to have *some* way to interact with it, > necessarily generic and low-level. Probably along the lines of > sending and receiving binary messages. > > At least that's the general idea I get. I can't give any specific > examples, but I don't think mass-market stuff like permanent storage > drives is what we're talking about here. (We already have filesystem > APIs in the works anyway, right?) Of course, more specific real-world > use-cases would be necessary before anyone would consider speccing > something like this. > Something that specific would be better implemented as a browser plugin that wrap OS API or a OS driver's API functionality, if it becomes popular then one or more browser developers would probably be interested in supporting it without the need for a browser plugin/wrapper, at which point one just need to follow the guidelines that Ian posts here quite frequently to get it standardized. -- Roger "Rescator" H?gensen. Freelancer - http://www.EmSai.net/
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 16:02:30 UTC