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

Re: [sensors] Device Proximity (was: Device light and proximity sensor)

From: N.V.Balaji <nv.balaji@samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 10:34:48 +0530
Message-id: <45DFF985289F45F2802B6BEA7F7DE3B4@sisodomain.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
Cc: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>, Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>, public-device-apis@w3.org
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 2:46 AM
To: "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
Cc: "Doug Turner" <dougt@mozilla.com>; "Anssi Kostiainen" 
<anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>; <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [sensors] Device Proximity (was: Device light and proximity 
sensor)

>
>
> On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Tran, Dzung D wrote:
>
>> > So, what I agreed with jonas about was a new event that only fired when 
>> > there was a transition between near and far. device proximity for 
>> > something that was more advanced. <insert this new event name here> for 
>> > something really simple.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Thoughts?
>>
>> What I am afraid of is that browsers going to interpret far versus near 
>> differently on the same device. I rather to give the control to the 
>> programmer to interpret base on value, min, max.
>>
>
> I'm afraid of the opposite thing. I more trust the people that are closer 
> to the os (or directly interfacing with the hardware) to handle that.

Just reporting the value is a better approach. Even though you may trust the 
people closer to OS, you can't guarantee all implementers agreeing on the 
same values.

>
>
> -- 
> Marcos Caceres
>
>
>
> 
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 05:06:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 May 2012 05:06:09 GMT