- From: Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:45:40 +1100
- To: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hi, in the spec you describe SensorDataEvent.timestamp as [relative]: timestamp of type double, readonly The time in nanosecond at which the sensor data was read. This value is [relative to the timestamp of the first sample that was acquired] for this sensor. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but won't it make fusion much more difficult? If you start watching a number of sensors and they all return their first SensorDataEvent after different, but undefined delays then how can you resolve how they are all temporally related? Wouldn't it be easier/better if they all shared a common timestamp derived from the device? Otherwise this shifts a lot of time management overhead back onto the developers. roBman On Sat, 2011-10-08 at 12:14 +0200, JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA wrote: > Hi, > > > A new draft of the sensor API is available at [1]. It tries to capture > the different comments received during the last conf. Call and through > the mailing list. @Claes a proposal to support basic discovery is on > the draft under the SensorManager interface. > > > Your feedback is needed. > > > Thanks, all the best > > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/system-info/Sensors.html > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede > consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico > en el enlace situado más abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send > and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at. > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 05:46:10 UTC