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

Re: SystemInfo: DisplayDevice

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:56:33 -0400
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B6E0CC5F-92C7-491F-ACFE-EF23FB885599@nokia.com>
To: ext Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>
Might want to add a note to the requirements indicating set is v2.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Mar 24, 2010, at 10:23 AM, ext Max Froumentin wrote:

> On 24/03/2010 15:07, Tran, Dzung D wrote:
>> Yes, I thought we decided at one time in the WG to have System-info  
>> as read only for v1.
>
> It had escaped me. Fixed now.
>
> Max.
>
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Dzung Tran
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@robineko.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 05:00 AM
>> To: Max Froumentin
>> Cc: Tran, Dzung D; public-device-apis@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: SystemInfo: DisplayDevice
>>
>> On Mar 24, 2010, at 12:28 , Max Froumentin wrote:
>>> Yes, some are quite far-fetched, but I listed them for the sake of  
>>> argument. If we found that _none_ of them should be settable, then  
>>> we should get rid of set(). But do we not want to be able to set  
>>> the brightness, for instance, according to the intensity of the  
>>> ambient light?
>>
>> Thinking out loud here, but would it be valuable to ship a v1 that  
>> was read-only and add set() in the next rev?
>>
>> --
>> Robin Berjon
>>   robineko - hired gun, higher standards
>>   http://robineko.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 26 March 2010 13:57:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:07 GMT