W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > August 2016

Re: Vibration API published as Proposed Edited Recommendation

From: Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 11:36:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CAC1M5qqmz0Jc3wXmpnBqpnL2uDtdD7=xKESz2xfxHSvtmi1u3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: W3C Device APIs WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hello,

Please see inline.

2016-08-19 7:50 GMT+01:00 Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>:

> Hi Lukasz,
>
> On 18/08/2016 23:27, Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) wrote:
> > I'm just wondering whether [1] will be included? Thanks.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/w3c/vibration/issues/12
>
> From a process point of view, it can't, since the PER was published
> without it; we would have to go through another PER review phase to add
> that additional text.
>
> From a more substantive point of view, I'm personally not convinced that
> the the threat you describe in [1] is one that is worth highlighting in
> the privacy considerations; but obviously that's up to the group to
>


This is understandable and OK. I addressed your concern in [1].


> decide. If we do decide it needs addressing, there are a variety of
> options:
> * following the current PER directly with another PER review
> * stashing this issue for another round of errata inclusion at a later
> phase
> * marking this for inclusion in a v2 of the spec (should we decide there
> needs to be one)
>

I would go with v2 and/or later phase. Definitely not do anything to make
things difficult. Especially since the issue has been filled after PER
review.



LO

[1] https://github.com/w3c/vibration/issues/12
Received on Sunday, 21 August 2016 10:36:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:08 UTC