- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:15:20 +0200
- To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Le jeudi 21 juillet 2011 à 17:27 +0200, Francois Daoust a écrit : > > I said I'd come up with some text to address ISSUE-114 during the > F2F: "Battery spec should note relative ordering of battery low versus > battery critical in terms of criticality". Further discussions during > the F2F concluded that we'd drop batterylow and batterycritical events > and add something like a "status" attribute that can take the values > "ok", "low", or "critical". The problem that I see with that approach is that you can't register to get only "critical" battery events. This means that if you're only interested in the "critical" state, you would end up getting a lot more events than you need (and thus ironically, drain the battery more than you need). This could probably be addressed by an additional parameter to the addEventListener call, but I'm not sure it's really better. Dom
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 14:15:44 UTC