On 2010-12-14 16:12, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
On 12/13/10, Diogo Resende<drese...@thinkdigital.pt> wrote:
Bjartur, I think you misunderstood our point. The idea is to have a way of
accessing this kind of devices (not necessarily by bt or usb). The
difference of this kind of devices is they're not keyboard, mics, headphones
or cameras.
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. There's no use in directly accessing the
device. If the app is a video stream filter, it can declare that it
takes a video stream as an input. The app only cares about the stream
being of MIME type "video" and potentially the encoding, not whether
the stream comes from a disk, camera, ethernet or tape.
Applications should not request keyboard access. They don't have to
care about keycodes and keyboard layouts. That's what OSes are for.
They request text. I fail to see what's so different about other
devices. In fact, applications shouldn't have to account for the fact
that there's some such thing as "devices" at all.
I have to agree with this, applications should be device agnostic.
If there is a particular type of devices that provides some form of data
not currently supported
then the standards should be extended to support that, but the device
handling should still be kept with the drivers,
if apps start talking directly (bypassing drivers/OS/Browsers/APIs) then
that is just one huge bugfest waiting to happen.
--
Roger "Rescator" Hågensen.
Freelancer - http://www.EmSai.net/
