W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > March 2011

Re: DAP rechartering

From: Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 11:41:27 +0100
Message-ID: <4D6E1ED7.2060502@opera.com>
To: "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTSI)" <BS3131@att.com>
CC: "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>, Rich Tibbett <rich.tibbett@gmail.com>, public-device-apis@w3.org
[please could we format mailing list replies so it's easier to respond]

 > Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
>> Yes, the Android sensor API provides information such as the sensor's
>> type, the time-stamp, accuracy and the sensor's data.
>> For Android 2.3 this API covers the following sensors:
>> “Device Orientation” related sensors are currently covered by the draft
>> DeviceOrientation event specification by the Geolocation WG. I interpret
>> that Richards proposal typically will address the other sensors.

Right. All of the above or a subset? We lock down on those sensors early 
on in the new charter or explicitly in the charter itself?

>> I would say that for the charter Richard’s proposal to state that we are
>> providing an events model for well-known sensors, e.g. those above not
>> covered by DeviceOrientation event, is ok. Then, if ok from a “charter
>> technical point of view”, we can state that any additional
>> extensibility/discoverability/low-level API proposals could be
>> considered for publication under the charter term.

Exactly :)

 > In order to model the API upon Android or other platforms, we need
 > the active involvement of the platform owners in the group,

Since we're talking about a company that also implements browsers, I 
would also strongly encourage that.

 > so that they bring these designs to W3C as RF starting point
 > submissions (like we did with BONDI), and to gain assurance that we
 > won’t run into major exclusion issues when we get to that point.

I'd expect that we would not be copying a Java API over the web platform 
verbatim unless, once we start to work on that task, it became clear 
that it made sense to do so.

Whether they commit a Java spec RF does not preclude our ability to work 
on suitable web standards. The W3C process is designed to take account 
of those considerations as a specification develops without requiring 
any particular action up front [1]. If a key target stakeholder were to 
initiate that process, then I'd also venture to say that we were doing 
something very wrong in the first place.

- Rich

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Disclosure
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 10:42:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:48 UTC