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

RE: Standby API Specification Proposal

From: Dariel Marlow <dmarlow@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 07:37:05 -0800
To: "'Dominique Hazael-Massieux'" <dom@w3.org>
Cc: <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <039a01cf2288$207a0d00$616e2700$@gmail.com>
Dominique, thank you for the feedback! I have two employers and several personal ambitions. That is why I decided to leave that information out. However, I don't mind sharing if it's of any use. I'm currently employed by Syncromatics and Degreed (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dariel-marlow/40/559/179).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about rechartering. Do you mean what currently has been defined in the deliverables or milestones? If you could elaborate on that (for my understanding), I would appreciate it. I shared this proposal with the royalty-free license in mind; I only wish the specification to be adopted. Thank you for pointing out the Mozilla and Google implementations of this, I had no idea they had something similar. If now they could only adopt this in a more standardized way for their consumer centric web browsers, I would be satisfied.

If there are other proposals that are better starting places, I'm all for it. I concur with your recommendation to get more feedback to gauge interest. Let's see what others in the thread think. Thank you for your feedback and time. It is very much appreciated.

Dariel

-----Original Message-----
From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 2:52 AM
To: Dariel Marlow
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: Re: Standby API Specification Proposal

Hello Dariel,

On mar., 2014-02-04 at 08:56 -0800, Dariel Marlow wrote:
> Hello Device APIs working group. I wish to propose a way for web 
> applications to interact with device standby behavior. The app may 
> request that the device not enter standby should the user not provide 
> input via touch or peripherals. Hopefully I’ve provided the document 
> in an appropriate format. If not, or if this is the wrong working 
> group, please advise.

Thank you for your proposal! It would be helpful for a number of IPR reasons if you could disclose the name of your employer (if you have one).

Let me explain a few things that stand between such a proposal and actual standardisation work, and then ideas on how to move forward with
it:
* before a W3C Working Group can start working on an API (or any spec in general), that API needs to have been included in the charter of its group; among other reasons, this is to ensure that the API is covered by the Royalty-Free licensing commitment enabled by the W3C Patent Policy. 

* As of today, the Device APIs Working Group charter doesn't include in its charter such an item: http://www.w3.org/2011/07/DeviceAPICharter

* As far as I can determine, no other W3C Working Group has it as part of its charter either

* To add this to our WG charter (which would be a reasonable addition given our overall mission) would require us to go through a rechartering process, a relatively involved process

* To justify the cost of going through this, we would want to get some clear interest from others, in particular browser vendors, that they do want to implement such an API.

Now, for some good news:
* your document include use cases which seem pretty reasonable and that I can guess others would find interesting as well

* Firefox OS ships an API with similar goals, navigator.requestWakeLock:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Navigator.requestWakeLock

* likewise, Chrome Apps have a requestKeepAwake API available to them:
https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/power.html

So there are clear precedents in this space, and maybe this thread can serve to gather confirmations that browser vendors would be interested on this; I'll try to gather feedback on this in other avenues, and hopefully you could as well try and get such feedback.

Now, on your specific proposed API, there are probably a number of changes that would be required to make it more Web-idiomatic; and given that there are other APIs out there, it might be that we would start from one of them rather than this specific approach.

Hopefully this clarifies how we would go about such a proposal, as well as how you could help in making it happen. 

Let me know if you have any question on this.

Regards,

Dom
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 15:37:36 UTC

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