W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > January 2013

Please confirm DAP comment resolution

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:27:59 +0000
To: <annevk@annevk.nl>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1CB2E0B458B211478C85E11A404A2B27018B73C8@008-AM1MPN1-034.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Anne

Thanks for your constructive comments to the DAP WG regarding the latest draft specifications, Proximity Events and Ambient Light Events.

We believe we have addressed the following comments with changes to the latest editors drafts.

Can you please review the changes and reply to this message (cc'ing the public list ) stating that the changes address your concerns that are listed here, or noting any remaining concern? 

We have separated your concerns into separate issues so we can track them.

(1) Proximity Events, updated editors draft (15 January) : https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/proximity/Overview.html

(1a) LC-2742 [1] ; default values not defined

Done: default values were added to the specification see section 5.2.2

(1b) LC-2731 [2] ; re-order requirement for queuing and firing (I did not see other specific issues in published draft noted in the email, e.g. RFC terms in Notes or duplicate definitions)

Done:  see change in 5.2.2, 6.2.2 re queuing, 

diff: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/diff/4c339a6b4be4/proximity/Overview.html

(2) Ambient Light Events, updated editors draft (15 January) : https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/light/Overview.html

(2a) LC-2738 [3] define default event members

Done:  default value was added to the specification see section 5.2.2

diff: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/diff/2f675457d430/light/Overview.html

Done:  in addition, clarified intent of light level definitions (dim etc) in 6.2.1 with enumeration description

diff: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/diff/51296676e203/light/Overview.html

(2b) LC-2737 [4] , re-order requirement for queuing and firing (I did not see other specific issues in published draft noted in the email, e.g. RFC terms in Notes or duplicate definitions)

Done:  see change in 5.2.2, 6.2.2 re queuing, 

Can you please review these changes and reply all to this email indicating that these issues can be closed?  The sooner the better, or by 29 January (please let me know when you might reply if within the next week or so does not work for you)

I have left out the issue of whether there should be a single specification as that is a question the group is still discussing (LC-2739 [5])

Thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair, W3C DAP Working Group

[1] https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/43696/WD-proximity-20121206/2742

[2] https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/43696/WD-proximity-20121206/2731

[3] https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/43696/WD-ambient-light-20121213/2738

[4] https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/43696/WD-ambient-light-20121213/2737

[5] https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/43696/WD-ambient-light-20121213/2739
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 22:31:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 January 2013 22:31:55 GMT