- From: Tobie Langel via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 08:57:12 +0000
- To: public-device-apis-log@w3.org
>> The term raw is sort of weird as the data is partially calibrated. > Agree, I also feel that 'Raw' term is confusing, unfortunately don't have proposal for a better name. That might be a sign it shouldn't be a name. ;) >> We'd need a term for this dynamic calibration... > I think we should 'pull-up' terms as soon as there is more that 1 place where it is defined (applicable). If this is a generic term, absolutely. If it is only for magnetometer, maybe we can keep it in magnetometer spec, wdyt? I see your argument. But because that's clearly generic terminology, I think it belongs in generic sensor. else, it implies editors of subsequent specs will have to hunt for terminology in all concrete sensor specs all the time. >> As an option, we need something like keep HardIronBias or avoidHardIronCorrection > This makes magnetometer interface calibrated and (almost)uncalibrated at the same time, introduces side-effects. If developer constructs magnetometer with 'avoidHardIronCorrection = true' and platform does not support uncalibrated magnetometer what would happen at start()? Good question. Maybe we can introduce a third kind of error for such cases, e.g. `NotSupportedError`? -- GitHub Notification of comment by tobie Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/magnetometer/pull/21#issuecomment-292889658 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 10 April 2017 08:57:18 UTC