plus there could be more than one camera accessing api (and there is!)
kinda like the flat bool property approach you propose shaz. the
calling code would be clean. worried we're going to end up throwing
lots of shit on that pile. also not sure what the perf impact would be
like. (presumably these are blocking calls which kinda sucks.)
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So... if the device is capable of something (say front and back
> camera) and we don't enable the Camera plugin, one can't query for it?
> This is more of a device thing I think than a Camera API thing. Can't
> think of a scenario besides diagnostics though...
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ask the camera API, not the device! Otherwise we will surely be
>> screwed with every new capability that ever comes out ...
>>
>> window.device.camera.capabilities// returns ... an array? an integer?
>>
>> or
>>
>> window.device.camera.supports("frontfacingcamera"); // boolean
>>
>> window.device.capture.supports("h264recording");
>> ....
>>
>> Since the Camera is really just a plugin to us, we should just be
>> defining a way for a plugin to describe it's capabilities on a
>> particular device.
>>
>> My 2 cents, ... back to parental leave ...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jesse
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>>> ya. slippery ground. the orig query, and valid one at that imo, is how
>>> to find out if we have any camera, or two.
>>>
>>> window.device.capabilities.camera // returns ... an array? an integer?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>> Hmm so then standardizing the .capabilities object becomes the hard part?
>>>>
>>>> On 10/19/12 4:56 PM, "Shazron" <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>We already have the window.device object -- we can tack on a
>>>>>window.device.capabilities object that could contain the boolean
>>>>>properties or something.
>>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>>>>>> I dunno, I think this is independent of the current APIs. (More than
>>>>>> one API we have deals w/ Cameras for example.) Seems like we want more
>>>>>> nuance than boolean too (consider front && back camera). We are
>>>>>> definitely talking about hardware/sensors detection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not loving the w3c cc/pp spec, that RDF business looks hairy, I think
>>>>>> we need something more approachable like you describe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Tack on a .yep boolean onto every API surface?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/19/12 2:25 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Community member Ian has noticed our lack of a capabilities api, and
>>>>>>>>ignoring the snipe at our foresight, I do agree its a missing piece in
>>>>>>>>the web platform. [1]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There is some prior art.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>- Media queries have a couple of interesting APIs (matchMedia [2],
>>>>>>>>window.devicePixelRatio, and potentially a future
>>>>>>>>navigator.supportsCSS).
>>>>>>>>- Flash has a comprehensive capabilities API. [3]
>>>>>>>>- The W3C has a somewhat unwieldy take on this issue. [4] It should
>>>>>>>>be noted that a new working group at the w3c called sysapps will be
>>>>>>>>addressing this.
>>>>>>>>- Tizen has a System Info API (which I'd link to but cannot).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Does anyone have any thoughts on how we should structure / develop out
>>>>>>>>the ability for our users to query the device capbilities?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[1] https://twitter.com/iandevlin/status/259309546969903104
>>>>>>>>[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/window.matchMedia
>>>>>>>>[3]
>>>>>>>>http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flas
>>>>>>>>h/s
>>>>>>>>ystem/Capabilities.html
>>>>>>>>[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-CCPP-struct-vocab2-20070430/
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> @purplecabbage
>> risingj.com
