- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:10:21 +0200
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- CC: public-device-apis@w3.org
On 08/17/2011 04:15 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: > 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). How much more is a "lot more" though? It seems we're talking about a hundred events or so that would get fired over a period of several hours. Even if it's within an hour, that does not sound like a lot of overhead. Francois.
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 20:10:44 UTC