W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > October 2009

Re: ISSUE-14: Gathering requirements [System Info & Events]

From: Brian LeRoux <brian@westcoastlogic.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 07:50:08 -0700
Message-ID: <a4bcf6320910070750u6aafdc51yba5dd4bec78127cd@mail.gmail.com>
To: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
Cc: "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>, Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com, david.rogers@omtp.org, Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com, robin@robineko.com, jmcf@tid.es, public-device-apis@w3.org
+1

ftr, PhoneGap is currently supporting/working on:

Geolocation
* Accelerometer
* Notifications
Media playback
Camera
* Device info
Contacts
Online/Offline
SMS / Telephone
* Magnetometer

* not currently covered by DAP

2009/10/7 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>:
> Dear all,
>
> +1 for Tran's opinion.
> I think usage of sensor will be rapidly growing in the various kind of mobile devices(e.g. iPhone). So sensor API for web application should be provided.
> And I believe DAP WG is appropriate place in W3C.
>
> Best regards,
> Wonsuk.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tran, Dzung D
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 11:36 PM
>> To: Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com; david.rogers@omtp.org;
>> Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com; robin@robineko.com; jmcf@tid.es
>> Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: ISSUE-14: Gathering requirements [System Info & Events]
>>
>>
>> If we don't cover sensors in this WG, which WG would cover this? As the
>> name of the WG as "Device APIs", it makes sense that we should cover this
>> important feature of the device.
>>
>> Dzung Tran
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com [mailto:Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 02:37 AM
>> To: david.rogers@omtp.org; Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com; Tran, Dzung D;
>> robin@robineko.com; jmcf@tid.es
>> Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: ISSUE-14: Gathering requirements [System Info & Events]
>>
>> On 6.10.2009 18.36, "ext David Rogers" <david.rogers@omtp.org> wrote:
>> > The question remains as to whether we should consider the subject of a
>> sensors
>> > API as in-charter. Having re-read the charter, at the moment, I would
>> say no.
>> > With the existing API proposals we have on the table I think we have a
>> large
>> > amount of work and scope creep could be dangerous, taking apart any
>> other
>> > potential IPR concerns.
>>
>> The charter says the WG will deliver at least those API specifications
>> that
>> are explicitly listed. That does not rule out sensors as such, or indeed
>> any
>> other APIs that are not listed. It's a different matter whether the sheer
>> number of deliverables would already prohibit that.
>>
>> Important use cases for accelerometers should at least be considered, but
>> it
>> wouldn't make sense to define just a dedicated accelerometer API, since we
>> already know that there are other such sensors too, probably enough to
>> warrant a "universal" or extensible framework for sensor data access.
>>
>> > Perhaps there is scope to start a separate discussion about the whole
>> subject
>> > of transducers, not just sensors, With a view to re-chartering once
>> there is
>> > something on the table (perhaps within the next year)? I wonder if the
>> SCADA /
>> > PLC community would be interested in that part too?
>>
>> Can you elaborate on the concept of transducers in this context? That
>> might
>> help us determine the need for such a framework as hinted above. Somehow I
>> wouldn't think rechartering is necessary with sensors as we know them on
>> phones, but based on the little I know about SCADA it suddenly makes me
>> think "version 2, if ever". :-)
>>
>> --Jere
>>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 14:50:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:39 UTC