Re: Updated draft charter

On mar., 2014-01-21 at 14:34 +0000, Michael van Ouwerkerk wrote


> recent discussions on this list have again highlighted the need for
> further work on the device orientation spec. It would be great to
> drive that to CR.

Absolutely! This probably should be at the top of the priorities of this
group :)

> I would like to express again my concerns about geofencing,
> specifically its likely dependency on ServiceWorker, which is
> immature. ServiceWorker could provide a lightweight mechanism to wake
> up a webapp and fire a geofence event. Without a lightweight wakeup
> mechanism, geofencing will be a lot less useful. Given this likely
> dependency on an immature spec, do you still think the proposed
> milestones are realistic?
> 
I agree with you that geofencing is much more useful with a wake-up
mechanism; that said, assuming that people already do geofencing with
the current geolocation API (which I don't know), it could also be
argued that a dedicated geo-fencing API would improve significantly
these existing use cases (i.e. more battery efficient, more privacy
sensitive).

By how much do you think we would need to push the milestones if there
were indeed a dependency on ServiceWorker? My understanding is that a
first spec for SW should appear in the upcoming few weeks, but I am a
lot less clear on how far that spec will be from being in state where
one can build other specs on top of it.
> 
> Finally, I'd be happy to contribute to the Geolocation spec,
> representing Google, as part of Chrome.

Great news, thanks!

>  Maybe we can also find someone new to help out with the device
> orientation spec.

Dom

Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2014 14:45:04 UTC