- From: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:55:58 -0400
- To: "Lukasz Olejnik (W3C)" <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com>, Nick Doty <npdoty@ischool.berkeley.edu>, Christine Runnegar <runnegar@isoc.org>
- Cc: W3C Device APIs WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>
I believe Nick and/or Christine were to document PING privacy considerations to share with DAS (for Vibration, Ambient Light, general etc) Perhaps this has already been done - Christine/Nick, what is the status of PING comments to DAS? Thanks regards Frederick Frederick Hirsch Chair, Devices and Sensors WG > On Jun 11, 2016, at 7:05 AM, Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > Please see my answers below. > > 2016-06-06 5:43 GMT+01:00 Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>: > Lukasz > > Thanks for the update, makes sense > > see inline for additional > > regards, Frederick > > > On May 28, 2016, at 8:17 PM, Lukasz Olejnik (W3C) <lukasz.w3c@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > Thanks for pinging me. > > I am going through a very... eventful time recently. I keep my eyes open on the lists and works. > > > > First of all, if I understand correctly, privacy considerations for Vibration are accepted. I'm unsure if we should include a detailed discussion about cross-device, cross-domain and others. Perhaps this should be included in the sensors that can actually read/interpret data (vibration "writes"). > > It is also closed in GH. > > > > For the generic sensors API, I listed [1] and [2] as possible issues that might need to be addressed ("upstream"). > > > > For Ambient Light Sensors, I am waiting for a message indication that the considerations in Vibration API are fine. Then I go to ALS. Yes, indeed I would use my report as a blueprint. But I am thinking of something more, too. We discussed some privacy aspects at [3]. > > > > Is there any "delivery" date I should keep in mind for ALS? > > what is status of PING comments? > > I'm unsure, weren't you (or rather, Nick Doty) supposed to write down a note on this a while ago? > For the moment, the considerations section seem sound, albeit general, but hopefully address [1]. > Are we still waiting for [2] > > > > > > I'm also wondering if there may be some other outside-the-box issues, so I asked Riju if it's possible to test the initial implementation (thanks, Riju!). Now I need to close my current tasks outside of W3C and proceed to this as well. > > > > > > As for the PDF report, I am also wondering if we could lead this to a W3C Note. Personally, I think this would be an interesting work. > > In this case, I am volunteering to be an editor. I would ask for a co-editor (from DAS and/or PING)? > > Perhaps you can start with creating an additional note using a ReSpec template (perhaps Dom has pointer to latest) > > Sounds good, although I'm not versed in this ;-) > Do you think I would need a co-editor? > Initial vision and final aims should be highlighted in the beginning, of course. > > > In this case, we should also come up with recommendations for web authors? > > I'm not sure what you mean by this > > Would it be a proper place to include recommendations to Web designers? > Something similar to 'Web Accessibility guidelines [3]. > > [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2016Feb/0072.html > [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-privacy/2016AprJun/0014.html > [3] https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/ >
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2016 21:15:25 UTC