Re: Updated draft charter

Comments inline.

/m

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>wrote:

> 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).
>

True. It would be valuable to determine how much the v1 API is used for
geofencing. It would inform the need for standardizing it in v2. Certainly
there are good APIs for this available on Android, so this part seems
feasible to implement on that platform.


> 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.
>

There is some prototyping and real implementation work underway for
ServiceWorker. You would probably know better how long it takes to drive a
recommendation to completion. My question was real, I don't know the
correct answer. At the moment I can only point to the possible risk.


> >
> > 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
>
>
>