W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Device light and proximity sensor

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 14:40:12 +0000
To: Niklas Widell <niklas.widell@ericsson.com>
CC: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BB6AF3B8-9485-4727-9F15-33A5340A91D4@att.com>
On the DAP call today I mentioned some thing related to this, and Dzung's update to the Sensor spec in response to Doug's spec. Overall, my goal is that we get specs to CR with at least the minimum functionality that developers need to build effective apps. The one/many spec debate has been had before, and I will remain on the sideline there (ere are valid points on both sides).

I'm more concerned that the Sensor APIs contain the essential functionality. I'm not yet convinced that a simple min/max response for the ambient sound/light and proximity sensors will be enough, ie that no information/control of trigger points and event rate is needed. But I can be convinced if someone can explain how a Web developer would deal with such issues in an efficient, cross-platform way in the case that platforms vary widely in these additional aspects.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan

On May 8, 2012, at 5:07 AM, "Niklas Widell" <niklas.widell@ericsson.com> wrote:

> On 2012-05-07 17:58, "Doug Turner" <dougt@mozilla.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On May 7, 2012, at 8:47 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
>> 
>>> I do like the simplicity of the proposals. I would like to see them
>>> extended to ambient sound as well, using the same simple model
>> 
>> Yup.  I agree.
> 
> Is there anything preventing doing all the sensors in the current [1]
> sensor API with similar solutions?
> 
> [1] 
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/sensor-api/Overview.html#datatypes
> 
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 14:41:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 14:41:33 GMT