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

Re: [sensors] Proximity Events

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 13:31:35 +0200
Cc: "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D458D9CB-5B1C-4B90-88D7-9ADB3015D64B@berjon.com>
To: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>
On May 16, 2012, at 21:40 , Doug Turner wrote:
> Basically yes.  You can think of a system where the proximity sensor is always on (in practice we don't do this).  When someone registers for an event, there is a state change from unknown->known.  We fire this as a proximity event to the registered event listener.

I'm happy with this solution, and Jonas's arguments make a lot of sense.

I would just like to make sure that we all agree that this is different from "ISSUE-113: AddEventListener in Battery Status has side effects" [0]. We closed that issue because Battery ended up using a different design for which the problem did no manifest, but we didn't reach consensus on whether this was a good thing or not. If it's not different and the same issue applies here, the "right" thing to do would be to prod those who thought it a bad design (Anne comes to mind) so that they may voice their concerns.

[0] http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/113

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 11:32:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 May 2012 11:32:50 GMT