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

Re: [Proximity] Proposal for addition field

From: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:47:16 +0200
Cc: "DAP public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2A96FA3B-F4DA-4C04-ACB8-E890467E5357@nokia.com>
To: ext Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
On 19.11.2012, at 18.55, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:

> On Monday, November 19, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Tran, Dzung D wrote:
> 
>> Yes, it is a bit of chicken/egg problem. However, we need some way to tell if there are multiple proximity sensors. As for a Parking Sensor API, I don't think we want a API for any type of thing that comes about. As for Proximity API means the one for face-closeness detection on a mobile phone, I don't agree it just for mobile phone and face-closeness, we are seeing proximity sensors that are coming to the PC and tablet which has better range than just close to the face.
> 
> Right, but we should target the 80-90% use cases now, and others when they become more commonly available. However, if you have evidence that a significant portion of the market actually has these multi sensor devices, then it forms a strong case for standardization (why do I feel we've had this discussion already?). I'm really interested to see if there are any camera based solutions in the wild. 
> 
> Note that I am not saying that this is a bad idea - just that we should not add things because they might enable something tomorrow. 

We discussed this issue already in May (see: http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/wiki/FutureWork) and concluded the functionality is out of scope for v1. It seems the situation has not changed since (no devices shipping with multiple proximity sensors, no new use cases).

Given this, I propose we'll defer this functionality to v2 as agreed already in May.

All - let me know if you have concerns with this.

-Anssi
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 08:48:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 November 2012 08:48:06 GMT