Re: Restricting gUM to authenticated origins only (was: Re: Intent to implement and ship: ImageCapture)

2014-09-05 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Robert O'Callahan > wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Henri Sivonen > wrote: > >> Is current gUM restricted to authenticated origins? If it isn't, is it > >> realistic to restrict it to authenticate

Re: Restricting gUM to authenticated origins only (was: Re: Intent to implement and ship: ImageCapture)

2014-09-05 Thread Henri Sivonen
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Robert O'Callahan >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Henri Sivonen >> > wrote: >> >> Is current gUM restricted to authenticated ori

Re: Restricting gUM to authenticated origins only (was: Re: Intent to implement and ship: ImageCapture)

2014-09-05 Thread Robert O'Callahan
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Robert O'Callahan > wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Henri Sivonen > wrote: > >> Is current gUM restricted to authenticated origins? If it isn't, is it > >> realistic to restrict it to authenticat

Restricting gUM to authenticated origins only (was: Re: Intent to implement and ship: ImageCapture)

2014-09-05 Thread Henri Sivonen
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> Is current gUM restricted to authenticated origins? If it isn't, is it >> realistic to restrict it to authenticated origins? > > That's a good idea but it's a separate issue. Is it

Re: Intent to implement and ship: ImageCapture

2014-09-05 Thread Robert O'Callahan
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > Does this have the same privacy protections as current gUM? > Yes. You can only use this on a stream you've already acquired (e.g. via current gUM, but other APIs also produce streams). You can already shunt a MediaStream to a element and

Re: Intent to implement and ship: ImageCapture

2014-09-05 Thread Henri Sivonen
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Alfredo Yang wrote: > Summary: > Allow web authors to take photo via gUM video track. Does this have the same privacy protections as current gUM? Is current gUM restricted to authenticated origins? If it isn't, is it realistic to restrict it to authenticated orig

Re: Intent to implement and ship: ImageCapture

2014-09-04 Thread Robert O'Callahan
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Robert O'Callahan > wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> Looking at the API though, why is it based on Events rather than > >> Promises? > > > > > http://w3c.github.io/mediac

Re: Intent to implement and ship: ImageCapture

2014-09-04 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> Looking at the API though, why is it based on Events rather than >> Promises? > > http://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-image/#promise-extensions-to-imagecapture That seems super stran

Re: Intent to implement and ship: ImageCapture

2014-09-04 Thread Robert O'Callahan
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Ooh, that is great! Though surprisingly the API doesn't seem to have > any support for focus or flash control? Was that intentionally left > out? > I think it's just a case of not wanting the spec to get too far ahead of implementations. L

Re: Intent to implement and ship: ImageCapture

2014-09-04 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> What's the use case here? Note that in order to build even a >> half-decent camera app just for taking selfies you need some amount of >> control over of focus. For more advanced

Re: Intent to implement and ship: ImageCapture

2014-09-04 Thread Robert O'Callahan
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > What's the use case here? Note that in order to build even a > half-decent camera app just for taking selfies you need some amount of > control over of focus. For more advanced camera apps you also want > control over backlight compensation,

Re: Intent to implement and ship: ImageCapture

2014-09-04 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Alfredo Yang wrote: > Summary: > Allow web authors to take photo via gUM video track. > > Bug: > Main tracking bug, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=888177 > > Spec: > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/default/media-stream-capture/ImageCapture.html > >

Re: Intent to implement and ship: ImageCapture

2014-09-04 Thread Mike Habicher
I've been steering the underlying ICameraControl implementation (dom/camera) towards better support for ImageCapture's usage model for a while. If we can fill in support for the missing features we currently use (see CameraCapabilities.webidl) then I

Re: Intent to implement and ship: ImageCapture

2014-09-04 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
It seems like this API addresses at least some of the use cases of our Camera API for Firefox OS (things such as being able to display a preview video stream, being able to adjust some picture quality parameters, etc.). I am wondering if you know how much of the Camera API use cases this is g