RE: Battery API Last Call Comment Status

Responses below
 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mounir Lamouri [mailto:mounir@lamouri.fr]
>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 2:27 AM
>To: public-device-apis@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Battery API Last Call Comment Status
>
>On 01/19/2012 10:17 PM, Carr, Wayne wrote:
>> We can close the request to determine if a battery is present.  It would be nice
>and I think fairly irrelevant for fingerprinting.   The important one was the other
>comment that was fixed.
>
>Why would that be nice?

Someone could want to display battery information if there is a battery present in the device, but not to display if there is no battery or if the device doesn't know.  Given the current definitions in the draft, whether there is a battery present cannot always be determined.  The point of what I wrote is that I will drop my last call comment if the WG does not want to add it.  I'm just trying to make it easier to dispense with my Last Call comment.

>
>> Different topic, but one thing to consider is including a sentence that says the
>api provides summary information across one or more batteries (since there can
>be more than one).  Maybe that's obvious and doesn't need to be said.
>
>What's the use case for that? Implementations could easily handle multiple
>batteries. For example, battery.level would take into account that there are more
>than one battery and will show the combined batteries level.

You may have misunderstood what I wrote.  I suggested adding a clarifying statement that if there is more than one battery in the device, the values represent the combination of batteries.  It seems obvious it should be combined.  The clarifying sentence makes it explicit that implementations should not do something like report only a single battery.


>
>--
>Mounir

Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 20:04:05 UTC