W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2012

Re: [whatwg] Device proximity and light events

From: Tran, Dzung D <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 14:45:07 +0000
To: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Message-ID: <84BCA539DD96614691177EDA3CE4FF0546B100D9@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
Cc: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>, JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
There is a discussion on the DAP WG, we like the simplicity of the proposal however there is an important feature that is missing which is ability to set the report interval and threshold.

Thanks
Dzung Tran

-----Original Message-----
From: whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org [mailto:whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Doug Turner
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 7:31 AM
To: Anne van Kesteren
Cc: Jonas Sicking; whatwg@whatwg.org; Scott González; JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA; Andrei Popescu; Carr, Wayne
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Device proximity and light events


On May 9, 2012, at 3:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> Where was that discussion?
> 
> This came up at the WebApps F2F and there was general agreement that
> if we added new events adding new event handler attributes would make
> sense.

Was there any notes taken?


> Feature detection of some kind is useful as forcing people to
> do UA sniffing leads to badness.

I am not arguing that it shouldn't be done.   I just don't think it as important as most people.  For example, even if the device is present, it may be off or not responding.  In that case, you'll have a feature that tests positive and never receive any events.
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 14:45:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:08 GMT