W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > February 2014

RE: Standby API Specification Proposal

From: Mandyam, Giridhar <mandyam@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 14:32:52 +0000
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
CC: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, Dariel Marlow <dmarlow@gmail.com>, "<public-device-apis@w3.org>" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAC8DBE4E9704C41BCB290C2F3CC921A1679E445@nasanexd01h.na.qualcomm.com>
Yes the proposal is different, but the proposal is dependent on the underlying platform being able to detect an idle user and offering the developer the ability to throttle the standby.  I think it is related from that perspective.  

But that isn't the only reason to shift such a discussion to the SysApps WG.  I am not sure at this point this kind of API can be offered under the current browser security model - it may be something that is more suitable for an installable web application.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 6:29 AM
To: Mandyam, Giridhar
Cc: Kostiainen, Anssi; Dariel Marlow; <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Standby API Specification Proposal

Hi Giri,

On mer., 2014-02-05 at 14:22 +0000, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:
> Idle API is among the Phase 2 items for the SysApps Working Group - 
> http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/.  I think this kind of proposal would 
> be better discussed in that WG, since an API will be defined for idle 
> user notification already.

I did notice the "Idle API" in
http://www.w3.org/2012/09/sysapps-wg-charter.html 

I agree it might be similar to what Anssi was alluding to, but taken from the reverse perspective.

It certainly seems quite different from the prevent-standby proposal though.

Dom

Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 14:33:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:02 UTC