W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > March 2017

Re: In defence of a motion sensor spec

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@sensors.codespeaks.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 12:13:05 +0100
Message-Id: <1488885185.1252814.903083192.48337DCD@webmail.messagingengine.com>
To: public-device-apis@w3.org
> My thinking is we have two distinct audiences at play here with their own
> preferences and requirements:
> * Browser implementers
> * Web developers
> Catering to both the audiences extensively in the same document may not
> work out (history lesson, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong).

Both audiences seem to completely lack domain expertise, so I think this
should prove highly beneficial to all involved, myself included. :)

The feedback for the introductory part to the generic sensor spec was
quite positive, so I'm willing to give this a try and fold it out into
an explainer doc if necessary.
> The concrete specs at https://www.w3.org/2009/dap/#sensors are geared
> toward browser implements. They're concise, assume certain level of
> domain expertise. Granted, they're not good references for web developers
> or to be used as learning resources.
> Couple of ideas:
> * Start an explainer document for Motion Sensors (or "Motion Sensors for
> Web Developers" document) that bring together all the informative content
> in a form digestible to web developers. This doc would inform the
> normative spec work (because of Priority of Constituencies).
> * Produce (semi-automatically) "Sensors Snapshot" document similar to
> https://www.w3.org/TR/css-2017/ updated as new concrete sensors emerge.
> This would allow us make progress on the Rec Track on more mature
> concrete sensors as we keep adding new high-level motion sensors in the
> future.

I think the explainer doc is only a very small part of the reason why
having these specs defined together is important. And these reasons
still stand whether or not the explainer part is spec-contained.

If the only concern with this approach is W3C process, we can figure out
ways around that as needed, but we certainly shouldn't let that dictate
how and what we deliver. In the priority of constituencies, editors are
at the bottom of the pile. So is the process by which they get

Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2017 11:13:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:09 UTC