> > I'm skeptical about adding now a property for a device that we don't
> > support, because we -now- think it's a good idea. I might be wrong,
> > but my assumption is that when someone will want to support an
> > 'advanced' device, it's easy to add "movable" or whatever else to the
> > list of accepted properties values. Am I wrong in assuming this? As
> > long as "front" "back" and "external" will stay supported for backward
> > DTB compatibility it should be fine, right ?
> The basic rule is that you should not define things unless you KNOW that
> they will be needed. So when we actually see new devices for which
> "front", "back" or "external" does not fit, then new names can be
> created.

> It's impossible to cover all situations since we can't predict the future.
> The best we can do is to allow for future extensions.

Those devices are already being sold, and yes, they are running linux
(with some patches probably).

I believe it would be better to specify "this camera is selfie --
takes pictures of the user" vs. "this is main camera -- takes pictures
of what user is looking at".

Best regards,

(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to