Re: [proximity] Should names used in Proximity specification be changed?

Doug

The question came up, but yes it pretty much seems to be a naming question. Regarding Mozilla shipping the API, do you have any information on usage?

Thanks and thanks for the quick response.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Sep 26, 2013, at 12:49 PM, ext Doug Turner wrote:

Mozilla has shipped this API and we can not change names.  Nothing prevents us from adding new APIs/events, but at this point, we're bike shedding on names, right?

// Doug Turner


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:03 AM, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com<mailto:Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>> wrote:
The transition request to transition the Proximity Events specification [1]  to CR has been approved today; we plan to publish the CR draft on Tuesday 1 October, assuming no problems.

During the transition discussion the question was raised whether the names are clear and whether they should be changed since the interfaces and events are really about distance and proximity, not devices and users.
The concern is whether the names would be confusing for developers using the API.

Specifically, the introduction states:

[[

The DeviceProximityEvent interface provides web developers information about the distance between the hosting device and a nearby object.

The UserProximityEvent interface provides web developers a user-agent- and platform-specific approximation that the hosting device has sensed a nearby object.

]]

We agreed to bring the question to the WG:

(1) Would it be clearer to change the names to indicate that one is about distance and the other is about sensing a nearby object, e.g. ObjectDistanceEvent and NearbyObjectEvent (to make up some possible names).

(2) Are implementations and adoption (specifically Mozilla) at a point where a change is possible or would this be disruptive at this point?

(3) If a name change is possible and appropriate, which names should we use.?

Please respond with whether you think a change is possible and warranted, and if you support a change what you would propose for naming.

Such a change would impact interface and event names, be substantive, and cause a return to Last Call and another CR, as well as require a change to existing implementations - so there is a cost.

Please respond on the list. Hearing no support for a change, we will keep the names the same, but explicit response would be better.

Thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair, W3C DAP Working Group

[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/proximity/CR.html


For tracker, this completes ACTION-661