Re: DAP-ISSUE-169: Battery API needs to be more event driven and async, less device centric. [Battery Status API]

Hi Frederick, All,

On 08 Aug 2014, at 17:38, Frederick Hirsch <> wrote:

> we plan to publish an updated WD as soon as possible but want to get basic agreement regarding some of the issues (e.g. re promises) first so we donít confuse people going forward

This is a summary of all the changes since 3 July Editorís Draft to help the group review them more easily. I've tried to address all the open issues and actions in the tracker:

The Editorís Draft updated with the below changes is at:

Hereís the summary of changes:

ISSUE-166 Should getBattery() always return the same promise?

Resolved with:

ISSUE-168 getBattery() vs. requestBattery() pattern

Resolved with:

ISSUE-169 Battery API needs to be more event driven and async, less device centric.

Addressed by Brianís response I think:

ACTION-705 Add warning to Battery API that (naive) implementation of API could negatively affect battery life

Resolved with:

This leaves us with:

ISSUE-167 Should Promises be used in Battery API

... which I think has addressed itself by two major implementers (Google + Mozilla) implementing the promise-based API, and in addition positive signals from others (Cordova), see:

> thanks for there recent review of Anssiís proposed update - I anticipate we will be publishing soon, we seem to be making progress.

Please let me know what would be an appropriate time for publishing the updated LC, while giving people some time to review the changes? Iím happy prepare a publication ready LC snapshot, and see it passes pubrules. Personally, Iíd like to make sure to get Mozillaís implementation feedback baked in before we publish.



Received on Monday, 11 August 2014 09:00:52 UTC