W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Uses cases and requirements for Orientation API

From: Angel Machín <angel.machin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:04:06 +0200
Message-ID: <q2t5562f69c1004160104maba4b00cq843980d571b02347@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
Cc: public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>, Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>, Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com>
Hi Martin,

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Thomson, Martin
<Martin.Thomson@andrew.com> wrote:
> I'm surprised that augmented reality use cases aren't described.  It seems a perfect fit with geolocation.

We don't have any use case in the spec actually, section 6 is empty.
I agree augmented reality is a very good one, could you please
elaborate it a little bit more?

> I sent comments in response to your original announcement of the orientation API spec.  I didn't get any response on these.
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2010Mar/0013.html>

Related to your previous comments:

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Thomson, Martin
<Martin.Thomson@andrew.com> wrote:

> On my first read, I assumed that these events would be cumulative changes from the current orientation.
> The angles are described in relation to the device axes (A, B, C), not the local reference frame (X, Y, Z), which doesn't help in making this any clearer.
> There is no clear link between (A, B, C) and (X, Y, Z).

I think that the three angles (theta, phi, gamma) describe the
position of the device reference system (A, B, C) related to the Earth
reference system (X, Y, Z)
I agree that diagrams would clarify the whole picture.

Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 08:04:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:50:59 UTC