public-device-apis@w3.org from February 2016 by date

Monday, 29 February 2016

• Re: [vibration] privacy consideration PING comments Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)
• Re: [vibration] privacy consideration PING comments David Singer
• Re: [vibration] privacy consideration PING comments Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)
• Re: [vibration] privacy consideration PING comments Joseph Lorenzo Hall
• Re: [vibration] privacy consideration PING comments Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)
• Re: [vibration] privacy consideration PING comments David Singer
• Re: [vibration] privacy consideration PING comments Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)
• Re: [vibration] privacy consideration PING comments David (Standards) Singer

Saturday, 27 February 2016

• Re: [vibration] privacy consideration PING comments Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)
• Re: [vibration] privacy consideration PING comments Chaals McCathie Nevile
• Re: [vibration] privacy consideration PING comments Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)

Friday, 26 February 2016

• Closed: [sensors] Add a section on how sensors are implemented Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] Add a section on how sensors are implemented Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Closed: [sensors] No way to express an abstract constructor in WebIDL Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Closed: [sensors] Clarify terminology Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Re: [battery] implementation testing report Frederick Hirsch
• Re: [battery] implementation testing report Kostiainen, Anssi
• [battery] implementation testing report Zhang, Zhiqiang
• [vibration] privacy consideration PING comments Frederick Hirsch

Thursday, 25 February 2016

• Re: Privacy call on Thursday 25 Feb at UTC 17 including Vibration API in agenda Christine Runnegar
• RE: [battery] getBattery() test case feedback Zhang, Zhiqiang
• Re: [battery] getBattery() test case feedback Kostiainen, Anssi

Wednesday, 24 February 2016

• RE: [battery] getBattery() test case feedback Zhang, Zhiqiang

Friday, 19 February 2016

• Wake Lock implementation in Mozilla Firefox Andrey Logvinov

Thursday, 18 February 2016

• Re: Privacy call on Thursday 25 Feb at UTC 17 including Vibration API in agenda Chaals McCathie Nevile
• Draft Minutes 2016-02-18 teleconference Frederick Hirsch
• DAP-ACTION-745: Request review of anssi update of vibration from wg and ping (pull request version) Device APIs Working Group Issue Tracker
• Privacy call on Thursday 25 Feb at UTC 17 including Vibration API in agenda Frederick Hirsch
• Re: [admin] Agenda - DAP Distributed Meeting 18 February 2016 Tobie Langel

Wednesday, 17 February 2016

• RE: [battery] Which events are to be fired when (un)plug in a charger? Zhang, Zhiqiang

Tuesday, 16 February 2016

• Closed: [sensors] sensorId : how are they named Tobie Langel via GitHub
• RE: [battery] Which events are to be fired when (un)plug in a charger? Zhang, Zhiqiang
• RE: [battery] Which events are to be fired when (un)plug in a charger? Zhang, Zhiqiang

Monday, 15 February 2016

• [admin] Agenda - DAP Distributed Meeting 18 February 2016 Frederick Hirsch
• Re: [vibration] Suggested changes for the Rec errata and Proposed Edited Rec Frederick Hirsch

Friday, 12 February 2016

• Re: [vibration] Suggested changes for the Rec errata and Proposed Edited Rec Chaals McCathie Nevile
• Re: [vibration] Suggested changes for the Rec errata and Proposed Edited Rec Kostiainen, Anssi
• Re: [vibration] Suggested changes for the Rec errata and Proposed Edited Rec Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)

Wednesday, 10 February 2016

• [sensors] Discreet sensors must fire an event with their current state on instantiation Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Re: [battery] Which events are to be fired when (un)plug in a charger? Tobie Langel
• Re: [battery] Which events are to be fired when (un)plug in a charger? Kostiainen, Anssi

Tuesday, 9 February 2016

• [vibration] Suggested changes for the Rec errata and Proposed Edited Rec Kostiainen, Anssi

Friday, 5 February 2016

• Re: [sensors] Identify the lower level primitives that do the actual sensor polling. Rick Waldron via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] sensorId : how are they named Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Closed: [sensors] sensorId : how are they named Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] No way to express an abstract constructor in WebIDL Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Closed: [sensors] constructor of "Abstract" Sensor Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] constructor of "Abstract" Sensor Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] No way to express an abstract constructor in WebIDL Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub
• [sensors] constructor of "Abstract" Sensor Rijubrata Bhaumik via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] sensorId : how are they named Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] No way to express an abstract constructor in WebIDL Tobie Langel via GitHub
• [sensors] sensorId : how are they named Rijubrata Bhaumik via GitHub
• Closed: [sensors] Identify the lower level primitives that do the actual sensor polling. Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] Identify the lower level primitives that do the actual sensor polling. Tobie Langel via GitHub

Thursday, 4 February 2016

• [admin] Draft Minutes from 2016-02-04 DAP teleconference Frederick Hirsch
• DAP-ACTION-744: Clarify battery test report , removing or explaining yellow at bottom of report Device APIs Working Group Issue Tracker
• DAP-ACTION-743: Discuss with tobie how to generate report showing issues reported by others and how resolved Device APIs Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: [sensors] Provide a way of tying sensor requests to animation frames Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Re: [workmode] Forwarding GitHub Issue comments to the list considered harmful? Kostiainen, Anssi
• [workmode] Forwarding GitHub Issue comments to the list considered harmful? Tobie Langel
• Closed: [sensors] Conformance requirements for concrete specs Tobie Langel via GitHub

Wednesday, 3 February 2016

• Re: DAP-ISSUE-171: Returning false if vibration hardware is not present or using hasVibration? (prefer promises) [Vibration API] Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)
• Re: [sensors] Define behavior when visibilityState != "visible" Frederick Hirsch
• Closed: [sensors] Define inantiation behavior in non top-level browsing contexts Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Re: [vibration] Returning false if vibration hardware is not present? Dominique Hazael-Massieux
• Re: [vibration] Returning false if vibration hardware is not present? Chaals McCathie Nevile
• Re: [vibration] Returning false if vibration hardware is not present? Frederick Hirsch
• Re: [vibration] Returning false if vibration hardware is not present? Kostiainen, Anssi
• Re: [sensors] Define behavior when visibilityState != "visible" Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub
• Re: [vibration] Returning false if vibration hardware is not present? Frederick Hirsch
• Re: [sensors] Define behavior when visibilityState != "visible" Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Re: [vibration] Returning false if vibration hardware is not present? Chaals McCathie Nevile
• [admin] Agenda - DAP Distributed Meeting 4 February 2016 Frederick Hirsch
• Re: DAP-ISSUE-171: Returning false if vibration hardware is not present or using hasVibration? (prefer promises) [Vibration API] Frederick Hirsch
• Re: [sensors] Conformance requirements for concrete specs Frederick Hirsch
• Re: [vibration] Returning false if vibration hardware is not present? Frederick Hirsch
• Re: [sensors] Define behavior when visibilityState != "visible" Marcos Caceres via GitHub

Tuesday, 2 February 2016

• Re: DAP-ISSUE-171: Returning false if vibration hardware is not present or using hasVibration? (prefer promises) [Vibration API] Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)
• Re: [battery] Which events are to be fired when (un)plug in a charger? Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)
• Re: [battery] Which events are to be fired when (un)plug in a charger? Kostiainen, Anssi
• Re: [battery] Which events are to be fired when (un)plug in a charger? Kostiainen, Anssi
• Re: DAP-ISSUE-171: Returning false if vibration hardware is not present or using hasVibration? (prefer promises) [Vibration API] Kostiainen, Anssi
• Re: [sensors] Define behavior when visibilityState != "visible" Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub

Monday, 1 February 2016

• Re: [sensors] Conformance requirements for concrete specs Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] Conformance requirements for concrete specs chaals via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] Conformance requirements for concrete specs Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] Conformance requirements for concrete specs Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] Conformance requirements for concrete specs Tobie Langel via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] Conformance requirements for concrete specs Marcos Caceres via GitHub
• Re: [sensors] Conformance requirements for concrete specs Anssi Kostiainen via GitHub

Last message date: Monday, 29 February 2016 22:04:19 UTC