- From: Reilly Grant via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 18:51:09 +0000
- To: public-device-apis-log@w3.org
> Do we still need the "ambient-light-sensor" powerful feature if the idea is for implementations not to prompt for it explicitly? I think we should remove it because it's not something that it would make sense for a developer to request or query the state of. > Does a lack of active video sources cause an ALS to stop or just stop provide readings? I think firing an error event with something like "No active video track." would provide a better developer experience. > Similarly, does `ALS.start()` fail if there are no active video sources or should the sensor just not provide readings? Same as above. > If the idea is to tie an ALS to an active track, maybe we do not even need to worry about the "camera" permission name or permission policy name at all? Just requiring an active video track does seem like it simplifies the model significantly. > Maybe it makes sense to explicitly take a `MediaStreamTrack` instance in the constructor and tie an ALS to a specific track's lifetime? I'm not sure that it provides value and just makes the API harder to call. -- GitHub Notification of comment by reillyeon Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/ambient-light/issues/79#issuecomment-1310753289 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2022 18:51:11 UTC