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

Re: [proximity] Should names used in Proximity specification be changed?

From: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:49:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHni0v-U7z=-VPw+pK33TzdjL5u4ZH_3+3iFYH24uEze04YUMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
Cc: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Mozilla has shipped this API and we can not change names.  Nothing prevents
us from adding new APIs/events, but at this point, we're bike shedding on
names, right?

// Doug Turner


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:03 AM, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:

> The transition request to transition the Proximity Events specification
> [1]  to CR has been approved today; we plan to publish the CR draft on
> Tuesday 1 October, assuming no problems.
>
> During the transition discussion the question was raised whether the names
> are clear and whether they should be changed since the interfaces and
> events are really about distance and proximity, not devices and users.
> The concern is whether the names would be confusing for developers using
> the API.
>
> Specifically, the introduction states:
>
> [[
>
> The DeviceProximityEvent interface provides web developers information
> about the distance between the hosting device and a nearby object.
>
> The UserProximityEvent interface provides web developers a user-agent- and
> platform-specific approximation that the hosting device has sensed a nearby
> object.
>
> ]]
>
> We agreed to bring the question to the WG:
>
> (1) Would it be clearer to change the names to indicate that one is about
> distance and the other is about sensing a nearby object, e.g.
> ObjectDistanceEvent and NearbyObjectEvent (to make up some possible names).
>
> (2) Are implementations and adoption (specifically Mozilla) at a point
> where a change is possible or would this be disruptive at this point?
>
> (3) If a name change is possible and appropriate, which names should we
> use.?
>
> Please respond with whether you think a change is possible and warranted,
> and if you support a change what you would propose for naming.
>
> Such a change would impact interface and event names, be substantive, and
> cause a return to Last Call and another CR, as well as require a change to
> existing implementations - so there is a cost.
>
> Please respond on the list. Hearing no support for a change, we will keep
> the names the same, but explicit response would be better.
>
> Thanks
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
> Chair, W3C DAP Working Group
>
> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/proximity/CR.html
>
>
> For tracker, this completes ACTION-661
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2013 16:50:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:00 UTC