RE: [Proximity] Proposal for addition field

+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niklas Widell [mailto:niklas.widell@ericsson.com]
> Sent: den 21 november 2012 09:18
> To: Anssi Kostiainen; ext Marcos Caceres; Tran, Dzung D
> Cc: DAP public-device-apis@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Proximity] Proposal for addition field
> 
> I think this relates to the discussion at TPAC around access to remote
> sensors from web apps. While there is an argument to make per-sensor
> specific apis for sensors that are available on phones (as our current
> apis are), I think a more general approach (along the lines of Generic
> Sensor api described in the charter for DAP) is better when looking at
> more complex scenarios. Such a general approach should include e.g.
> Discovery, selection/binding etc.
> 
> AS per request at the meeting I'm putting together some landscape info
> on the subject (hope to be able to publish early next week, has been
> delayed by other events).
> 
> Best regards
> Niklas
> 
> 
> On 2012-11-20 09:47, "Anssi Kostiainen" <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On 19.11.2012, at 18.55, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, November 19, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Tran, Dzung D wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes, it is a bit of chicken/egg problem. However, we need some way
> >>>to tell if there are multiple proximity sensors. As for a Parking
> >>>Sensor API, I don't think we want a API for any type of thing that
> >>>comes about. As for Proximity API means the one for face-closeness
> >>>detection on a mobile phone, I don't agree it just for mobile phone
> >>>and face-closeness, we are seeing proximity sensors that are coming
> >>>to the PC and tablet which has better range than just close to the
> face.
> >>
> >> Right, but we should target the 80-90% use cases now, and others
> when
> >>they become more commonly available. However, if you have evidence
> >>that a significant portion of the market actually has these multi
> >>sensor devices, then it forms a strong case for standardization (why
> >>do I feel we've had this discussion already?). I'm really interested
> >>to see if there are any camera based solutions in the wild.
> >>
> >> Note that I am not saying that this is a bad idea - just that we
> >>should not add things because they might enable something tomorrow.
> >
> >We discussed this issue already in May (see:
> >http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/wiki/FutureWork) and concluded the
> >functionality is out of scope for v1. It seems the situation has not
> >changed since (no devices shipping with multiple proximity sensors, no
> >new use cases).
> >
> >Given this, I propose we'll defer this functionality to v2 as agreed
> >already in May.
> >
> >All - let me know if you have concerns with this.
> >
> >-Anssi
> >
> >
> >
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 08:45:16 UTC