embedded:x-io/imagein/camera or embedded:io/image/in?

[stc1988]

embedded:x-io/imagein/camera is implemented in Moddable, while embedded:io/image/in is defined in the EcmaTC53 specification. Is the latter more correct?

[phoddie]

Thanks for pointing this out. I thought I had updated all the module specifiers from the initial experiments, prefixed with x- to the final module specifiers in the ECMA-419 3rd Edition draft. Apparently I missed this one. I've updated this for the next code drop.

N.B. We use "embedded:io/image/in/camera" for the cameras. There can be other kinds of io/image/in with different extensions, so it is helpful to distinguish.

[stc1988]

We use "embedded:io/image/in/camera" for the cameras. There can be other kinds of io/image/in with different extensions, so it is helpful to distinguish.

I understand that this means devices like thermal cameras will be defined with a different extension.

Since the module specifier was fixed in e53d7a8, I am now trying to create the type definitions. I will create embedded:io/image/in based on the ECMA-419 specification and create embedded:io/image/in/camera by extending that class. Is that okay?

[phoddie]

That sounds perfect. Thank you.

I look forward to reviewing the type definitions. Really great that you are getting this done even before ECMA-419 3rd Edition is officially completed!