W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > January 2010

RE: Publishing System Information API FPWD

From: Tran, Dzung D <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:57:49 -0800
To: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>, "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com>
CC: 'Robin Berjon' <robin@robineko.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <753F67ADE6F5094C9F1DBA00D1BAA8D312D9F892E5@orsmsx501.amr.corp.intel.com>
> - Proximity: How does a "proximity"-sensor work? If you hold the
> device in your hand the object nearest to the device is your hand. If
> you put the device on a table the nearest object is the table. If you
> have the device in your pocket the nearest object is the pocket.
> Which are the use cases? How to separate any other object from the
> object that "holds" the device?

This is depend on the location of the sensor. Usually the proximity sensor is placed in a place away from where you would hold the device. On mobile phone the proximity sensor is usually in front, but that does not precluded a device from having one on the back. The one use case is that the proximity sensor is in the front screen and you hold it up to your face, the display goes dark to save power. 

I have suggested in my previous posting to add a parameter to specify if the sensor is front or back.

Thanks
Dzung Tran,


-----Original Message-----
From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Max Froumentin
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 02:43 AM
To: Nilsson, Claes1
Cc: 'Robin Berjon'; public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: Re: Publishing System Information API FPWD

Hi Claes, thanks for the feedback. See below for responses.

On 27/01/2010 09:34, Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:

> Section 4.7 Network:
>
> The value range for currentSignalStrength attribute is undefined.
> Should it be a number between 0 and 1 representing a "minimum" and
> "maximum" signal strength level?

True. Fixed.

> Section 4.8 Sensors:
>
> - AmbientLight: The value range for the "intensity" attribute is
> undefined. Should it be a number between 0 and 1 representing a
> "minimum" and "maximum" intensity level?

I sort-of agree. But then shouldn't we make all the sensors return a 
normalised value, for the sake of uniformity? That wouldn't work so well 
for the atmospheric pressure, or ambient temperature, I think.

> - Proximity: How does a "proximity"-sensor work? If you hold the
> device in your hand the object nearest to the device is your hand. If
> you put the device on a table the nearest object is the table. If you
> have the device in your pocket the nearest object is the pocket.
> Which are the use cases? How to separate any other object from the
> object that "holds" the device?

I don't really know, and I haven't done much research on proximity 
sensors. Experts answers welcome!

> - Robin states below that W3C specification for FCWD should be
> "reasonably feature-complete". I am considering this.
>
> For sensors we have as I understand a resolution that "sensor that
> are often used by web applications should be easy to access by web
> developers" and be covered by the System Information API
> specification. Sensors that are more seldom accessed should be
> covered by a "full generic sensor API" that is subject to future
> work. OK. Looking at section 4.8 it covers "values of external
> sensors, reflecting the device's environment". The selection of
> sensors is consistent considering that they should represent the
> "device's environment". However, looking at this list with the view
> "sensors that are often used by web applications" then the priority
> might be different. I would say that common training use cases would
> motivate "Heart rate sensor" and "Step counter sensor" and maybe a
> "Blood pressure sensor". So, is the door open for any additional
> sensors, e.g. a set of "values of external sensors, reflecting the
> user's condition" due to the view "often used by web applications" or
> is the door closed?

I for one consider that the door is open and I'm hoping for more input 
on what sensors we should support. I don't think we would break the 
"feature-completeness" of the specification if we had that discussion 
after the FPWD is published and came to the conclusion that more sensors 
were needed.


> Section 4.10 Storage:
>
> - The constants for type to be considered. Wouldn't it be interesting
> to separate built in RAM and memory card?

Isn't that distinction properly captured throught the isRemovable attribute?

> - Why different data types for "capacity" (unsigned long) and
> "availableCapacity" (int)?

Fixed, thanks. (aside: I'm not really sure why WebIDL defines more than 
one integer type -except for unsigned- and, as a consequence, which to use)

>
> Section 4.12 Input Devices
>
> - Editorial error for attribute "microphones []" as it says "The list
> of cameras attached".

Fixed.

> - Editorial error for Camera property, attribute "maxZoomFactor" as
> it says " ...must be null is hasPhysicalZoom is false".

Changed with "<dd>The maximum zoom factor of this camera. This value 
MUST be <code>null</code> if the camera doesn not have a zoom (whether 
physical or digital)</dd>"

> Section A.2 Use Cases:
>
> - I miss a number of use cases. Some obvious use cases are for
> example:
[...]

I've not touched that section recently, as I'm not sure it should be in 
the document. Use-cases (and requirements) are helps, meant for writing 
the specification itself, but not part of the specification. Examples 
are ok, as they help the implementer get a quick overview of a specific 
API. That's why I have one at the beginning of each section. But 
use-cases are just as well replaced by more generic wording saying "this 
specification enables webapps to do XXX, YYY and ZZZ". I'd welcome a WG 
decision on this, so I've opened ISSUE-70

http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/70


Max.

Received on Friday, 29 January 2010 17:58:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:41 UTC