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

Re: [Proximity] Proposal for addition field

From: Niklas Widell <niklas.widell@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:18:23 +0100
To: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>, ext Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
CC: "DAP public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCD249B7.124EB%niklas.widell@ericsson.com>
I think this relates to the discussion at TPAC around access to remote
sensors from web apps. While there is an argument to make per-sensor
specific apis for sensors that are available on phones (as our current
apis are), I think a more general approach (along the lines of Generic
Sensor api described in the charter for DAP) is better when looking at
more complex scenarios. Such a general approach should include e.g.
Discovery, selection/binding etc.

AS per request at the meeting I'm putting together some landscape info on
the subject (hope to be able to publish early next week, has been delayed
by other events).

Best regards

On 2012-11-20 09:47, "Anssi Kostiainen" <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com> wrote:

>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.
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 08:18:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:56 UTC