- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:56:33 -0400
- To: ext Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Might want to add a note to the requirements indicating set is v2. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Mar 24, 2010, at 10:23 AM, ext Max Froumentin wrote: > On 24/03/2010 15:07, Tran, Dzung D wrote: >> Yes, I thought we decided at one time in the WG to have System-info >> as read only for v1. > > It had escaped me. Fixed now. > > Max. > > >> >> Thanks >> Dzung Tran >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@robineko.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 05:00 AM >> To: Max Froumentin >> Cc: Tran, Dzung D; public-device-apis@w3.org >> Subject: Re: SystemInfo: DisplayDevice >> >> On Mar 24, 2010, at 12:28 , Max Froumentin wrote: >>> Yes, some are quite far-fetched, but I listed them for the sake of >>> argument. If we found that _none_ of them should be settable, then >>> we should get rid of set(). But do we not want to be able to set >>> the brightness, for instance, according to the intensity of the >>> ambient light? >> >> Thinking out loud here, but would it be valuable to ship a v1 that >> was read-only and add set() in the next rev? >> >> -- >> Robin Berjon >> robineko - hired gun, higher standards >> http://robineko.com/ >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Friday, 26 March 2010 13:57:39 UTC