W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Proximity Events Feedback

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:40:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78gpVuB8+WHj2LgDaduVeJsVBeQHSP9AdxD46NVkg63-SA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Anssi Kostiainen
<anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com> wrote:
> On 7.12.2012, at 12.39, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> You defined "ondeviceproximity" and "onuserproximity" twice. This
>> seems to be because of the legacy-DOM-style formatting.
> Are you referring to the ReSpec-generated boilerplate or something else?

I think so. http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Howto_spec#Legacy_DOM-style
explains some of the problems.

>> If your device is not doing anything, e.g. completely stationary,
>> these sensors would theoretically not change and you would never be
>> able to get the actual state. That might be a mostly academic problem,
>> but this seems like another set of events that violate the spirit of
>> DOM Events. Kinda ambivalent on whether that's good or bad, but I
>> think it at least ought to be pointed out more clearly.
> We could augment the existing note to make this clearer. Do you have a preference or a suggestion what we should say about this?

The current note does not seem at all clear about how this will
actually be implemented. Explaining that would be more interesting I
think than handwaving the issue.

I just noticed your specification has the same issue as the Ambient
thingie. You're not defining default values for the event interface
members. (new UserProximityEvent("haha")).near is undefined. I suggest
adding that to the testsuite. (It's one of the basic things to cover
when testing event constructors.)

Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 12:41:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:56 UTC