- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 09:28:32 -0800
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Rich Tibbett <richt at opera.com> wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> The file input gained the @accept attribute a little while ago, to >> indicate what type of file should be accepted. ?It has three special >> values, "image/*", "video/*", and "audio/*". >> >> I believe one intent of these special values is that browsers may >> offer the user the ability to capture an image/video/audio with the >> webcam/mic and automatically set it as the value of the<input>, >> without the user having to create an intermediary file themselves. >> >> The spec doesn't give any indication of this, though, and I've >> surprised some people (browser devs, internally) when I tell them >> about @accept after they ask me about access the webcam/mic. > > That is possible, yes. It's about providing a video/image/audio file or > capturing from the webcam/mic by creating an on-the-fly file to return. > > For explicitly requesting a webcam or microphone 'file' from a web page we > have produced the W3C Media Capture spec [1]. > > For streaming webcam and/or microphone were working on and around the > <device> element. Yes, this all seems good and correct. <input type=file accept=video/*> allows the UA to give the option of recording a video, <input type=file accept=video/*;capture=camcorder> gives a stronger hint that the author expects the user to record a video, and <device> gives direct access to the video stream from a camera. >> Could we get a note added to the File Input section describing this >> intention? > > It's entirely a interface option for UAs to provide (e.g. [2]) but the > primary intention is on sharing normal video/audio/image files so a note in > the spec seems a little unnecessary IMO. Right now it's entirely unobvious that UAs should even *think* about offering the functionality to record a file, so I think it would be useful. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 09:28:32 UTC