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

Re: Standby API Specification Proposal

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 17:57:41 +0200
Message-ID: <1400860661.3682.180.camel@cumulustier>
To: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Cc: Mats Wichmann <m.wichmann@samsung.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Le mardi 20 mai 2014 à 18:15 -0400, Dominique Hazael-Massieux a écrit :
> > But would be great to get an official blessing.
> I'm checking what process (if any) we should follow to determine whether
> we can reasonably call this in scope for our current charter.

So from what I've gathered, this would be determined by the W3C Director
approval (or lack thereof) of a FPWD; such a FWPD would also necessarily
results from approval from the WG to proceed with such a work item.

To reduce the delay of uncertainty, maybe we could first run a CfC in
the group to determine whether the group considers this in scope of its
charter; and if there is such consensus, I could then try to get a early
assessment from the Director. Failing at any of these steps, we could
move to recharter the group.

> But this process considerations should not prevent work from starting on
> a converged API; assuming interested parties are willing to do the work
> in this group, we can always go through the rechartering process if this
> ends up being needed.

Based on a subsequent thread in the brand new specifiction forum [1], I
have drafted a very rough proposal that would fulfill the use cases that
have been discussed:
http://w3c.github.io/screen-wake/navigator_poke.html (see also

It is pretty different from the similar APIs in this space:
https://github.com/w3c-webmob/web-api-gap/blob/master/features/screen-wake.md (which means it's probably not the easiest path to convince implementors)


Received on Friday, 23 May 2014 15:58:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:07 UTC