W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > August 2014

[battery] Battery Issue summary and status

From: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 16:18:39 -0400
Message-Id: <4FD3DE5D-04FF-4FA4-833E-6E4B51031590@fjhirsch.com>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
To: Device APIs Working Group <public-device-apis@w3.org>
 I went through the recent battery threads, created what I think are appropriate issues, and added notes for the discussion mails to the various issues (despite mixed threads etc).

That will teach me to allow threads to happen without associated issues :)

Here are the issues I believe we are working with for battery (and a pithy status summary for each). 

(1) ISSUE-164 : Correct default for charging time if unknown in battery ; on [Battery Status API] http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/164 

After numerous rounds of suggestions and edits I believe this issue can be closed given the current language in the draft.
If this is not correct, please send a message to the list noting ISSUE-164 and what remains to address.

(2) ISSUE-165 : Clarify language around multiple batteries ; on [Battery Status API] http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/165 

Again, after numerous rounds of suggestions and edits I believe this issue can be closed given the current language in the draft.
If this is not correct, please send a message to the list noting ISSUE-165 and what remains to address.

(3) ISSUE-166 : Should getBattery() always return the same promise? ; on [Battery Status API] http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/166 

On the smaller scale I believe this is resolved with a decision of ‘yes’, there was support for that. An associated issue spun out of this, should we use promises, but that is tracked separately.
I suggest we close ISSUE-166, any objection? If any comment please send email to the list noting ISSUE-166.

(4) ISSUE-167 : Should Promises be used in Battery API ; on [Battery Status API] http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/167 

There is a lengthy thread which I’ve put into the issue notes. My sense is that we probably want to revert the use of promises, given the discussion, but I may be wrong.
My recollection is that we made this change to be ‘good citizens’ and be ‘consistent’ with Google and TAG recommendations. It appears that was a mistake.

Please make any comment on a new thread, noting ISSUE-167 in the subject/body.

(5) ISSUE-168 : getBattery() vs. requestBattery() pattern ; on [Battery Status API] http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/168 

I’m not sure there is any conclusion here. It depends on ISSUE-167, but not sure changes are warranted. Again, please make any discussion a separate thread with ISSUE-168 in subject/body.

We can discuss on this week’s call. For any email discussion *please* send a separate email for separate issues and include ISSUE-NNN (with appropriate number in place of NNN) in the subject/body.

Did I miss any issues that need to be tracked?

Thanks 

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair DAP
@fjhirsch
Received on Monday, 4 August 2014 20:19:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:11 UTC